-

) BEe_0

Ebullrltl

July 29 1993

Annbull Jtruko ReMdibulll Project MIDite r US EnviroNMntal Protection Agency wute Mbullnbullvement Division (HSV-CAN5) JFJt hdeul Building 8oaton MA 02203

Re Picillo Superfund Site -- Proposed Plan COifMDI Dtl lgr The At1minhtrative Racgrd

Dear Ms Jtruko

This letter and the enclosed reportbull from nvironmental Stuteties Cor poration and L1wrence C LeBla nc an being s ublllitUd by Ge ne ul Electric Company Aahll nd Chemical company GAr Corporbulltion Rohm and Haas Company Americbulln Cyaurllid Comp1ny a nd Monsanto Co rporation (the ~companiea)

in response to the United States Environmental Protection Agencys (PA or the Agency) Proposed Plan (the Plan ) for the clea n up of the Picillo rum Superfund Site (the Site) The primary componentbull o f t he Plan are dewatering a nd enh1nced soil vapor e at raction as a method of source cont r ol long-term groundwater extraction and tre1tment I nd extensive a nd frequent mo nitori ng EPA estimates the cost of t his work will be about Slfi million

The Companies believe that PAs proposed $16 million remedy as 1nnounced i n the Proposed Plan is not consistent with the National Contintency Plan (HCP) and is an unwarranted re1po nse to conditions at t he Site that present no current bullctual rilk to human health or the e nv ironment and that fair analysis shows present no future actual risk

EPA ac knowl edies t here is no c u rrent actual risk associlted with drinkin9 either site 9roundwater or site surface water because neither is used for that purpose Plan at 11 Hypothetical assumed future use is the EPAs basis for t he fi nd ing of risk j ustifying the selected remedy EPAs Ph n states If in the future resident s were to use the groundwater from the con taminated aquifer or

~-n = ca=

Anna lttasko July 29 lt93 Page 2

the Unnamed Swamp aa a dtinking watet supply [then) auch u would poae unacceptable long-term riakl to hurn health bull ld

It is on thil apecuhtive a nd purely hypothetical bull that EPA haa decided 1 $16 raillion nrnedy il appropriate hen The amp16 raillion will be spent 10 that hypothetical dri nking water wells can be installed in a small isolated acea on and neac the forbullr diapoaal acea at the Site and to allow for the hypothetical future u of s urface water from the Unnamed Swamp l ocated downgndient o f the Site EPA limply aaaumea theae future uaea for nowhere in the Remedial Invtivation (bullRt-) the reuibility Study (bullrsbull) the Rhk Aaaeaament (bullRAbull) o r i n any o ther relevant document il then an analysis of the likelihood that these future uaea will ever occur

EPA 1 improper assumption that vroundwater and surface water lilY be used for drinking water and the perceived need to restore the waten for thoae uaea are t he critical elements in ita selection of the remedy for this Site EPA itaelf acknowledges that dinct cont1ct with the soil do not give rise to an unacceptlble rilk rs at ES-2

This letter therefore makes the followincr point a

1 As EPA has recognized i n the Plan there are no cuuent actual risks to human health or the environment auochted with the Site

2 Contrary to EPA uaertiona the Site presents actual future risk to human health EPA has tailed to comply with the NCP and ita own ouidance documents by defaultincr to an ass umed future nsidential land use scenario that posits the use of impacted crroundwater and surface water for drinking water supplies It has not conducted any site-specific evaluation of whether this uae ia sufficiently likely that there exists a risk of the sort that juatifha a Superfund remedy like the one proposed here

3 If EPA had done the site-s pecific ana lysis required by the NCP and ita guidance it would have concluded that it ia highly unlikely that

-n = = ca

r

Anna Jtruko July 29 193 Page 3

there ever wi 11 be future uae of 9roundwater or aurface w1ter in the iMplcted uea and that accordingly no aubatantill remedy h appropriate

4 CRCLA lllowa EPA to ~elect and implerMnt 1 remedy only when there il a aigniticant riak or danger to human health or the environment The NCPa bullexpectation t h1t aqulfen will be restored to their beneficial u u drinking water auppliea doea not juatify a remedy in the absence of actual risk to human hellth

middot The Rhode lahnd water qu lity 1tandarda do not juatify a remedy in the abae nce of either c urcent oc future actual riak

6 Even it it were to be uaumed that a remedy wu juatified source control without 1 management of mignti on (pump-and-trnt) component s hould hne been proposed The rs co ncludes that the 1ource control component alond will cl81n up the aquifer i n 40 yean The manaqement of miqratio n component wi 11 accelerate clean-up by o nly 20 yean but would coat an additional $9 million Given t ha t future use of the impacted qroundwater a nd a urface water is unlikely there is no justification for spend inq an edcUtionel $9 million to expedite clean-up by 20 yean

7 It is particularly inappropriate to propose a pump-and-treat remedy where IPA hu concluded t hat ONAPLs are likely to be present The PS ecknowhdqes that the preaence of ONAPLs will prevent the 20-year clea n-up 90d from beiniJ met even with the pump-and-treat system

1 All EPA Has Acknowledged In The Plan There Are No Current Actual Risks To Hyman H11ltb Auociated With The Site

The Risk Auessment (ADL 493) (RAbull) concludea that there are no current actual risks to human health associated with soil IJroundwater sediment or air at the Site SJUt RA at sect531 Key factors relatinq to drinking water and surface water are described below

a-n = = ca

Annbull Jr11ko July 29 lftl rve t

Drinking Water

There il no current inveation of Site-impActed groundwAter or aurf1ce water SU ao RA at 5-30 Reddentill drinking w1ter walla ue loc1Ud upvud ient of the Site 1nd ue in the deep bedroc k 1quUer EPA hu defined three plumes in the 1h11low bedrock aquifer originltin from the former wute diapoul areu It the Picillo FarM

1 A north-no rthwesterly plume t hlt diach1res to s ur face water in t he Unn1med Sw1mp about 60 0 teet downg udient from t he dilpoul 1re1

2 A westerl y p lume th1t 1110 d hchuvea to t he Unn1rned Sw1mp 1bout 600 feet downvradhnt a nd

3 A sout hwes terly plume that d ilchuljjes to aurf1ce water in the Great Cedar Swamp about 3 000 feet down9t1dient f r om t he disposal are a

rs at 2-5 t o 2-9

These plumebull do not and will not threaten downQudient recepto rs The PS s t1tes tha t the plumes will dilc har9e t o s urface water in t he Swamps The re they are diluted by lar9e qu1ntitiea of c lean wate r The PS s tates that aa a reeult the plume dhc harg i n9 t o the Unnamed Swamp is bull likely (to be] diluted and o r degraded befo r e movi n9 downgradient t o Wh i tfo rd Pond bull FS a t 2- J Simi la rl y t he southwes t plume d ischarljles to s ur face wa te r i n t he Great Cedar Swamp whe re it is dilut ed be fore it edta the Swamp and tlows i nto Gr e a t Gr ass Po nd FS at 2-91 Wh itfo r d

11 The PS states that surface water does not appear to be a si9nif i c a nt t ranspo r t mecha nism FS at 2-49 See also RA at 2-11 (bullSu rface wate r does not appear to p rovide a sicJ nifica nt chemical t r ansport mec han ism since the primary compo unds are volatile and degraded or emitted to t he air soon afte r discharge from the grou ndwater bull )

-a-n = = ca

Annbull ICnako July 29 1993 Pbullgbull 5

1nd Grebullt Gnu Pondbull hiVe not been impbullcted by cont linltlon nor hive 1re11 downatre11111 of theM been 10 impbullcted 1915 1t00 1t 5 The ~A po1nta out th1t i n llct the Sw1mpa h1ve ahown 1 dgnific1nt chellicll concentr1tion deerbullbullbullbull over ti RA bullt 2middotH Future i111p1ct on the two Ponda il highly unlikely given the lforernentioned d1t1

In ahort the only imp1cted 1n1a IU (1) the diapoul uu 1t the Picillo FUll (2) bull am1ll 1ection of lind between the di apoaal 1n1 1nd t he Sw1mpa and (J) t he pointa i n the Sw1mpa where the plumea dilchuge to aurflce water Then ue no drinking w1te r we lla i n the impbullcted areas bullnd the aurflce w1te r in t he two Swampa ta not uaed for drinking water Aa bull reault end 11 EPA hn ac knowledged t here ia no c urrent ectuel riak eaaocilted with i ngestion of impacted ground weter o r aurtece Wlter Plln bullt 11 -a

b Surface WUac shyn The RA purports to ce lculate an elevated ciak derived

from current e~poaure related t o surface water neu the = Site- Thh alleged risk has two components = 1) ingeation of aurface watu in connection with swimming or ca wading end 2) fiah ingestion The claimed cucinogenic risks result primarily from potential ingestion of fil h

ror the following reasons there simply is no such risk The contaminant concentrationbull thet produce the alleged riak levels are found in the Swamp and the North and South Seepa The RA n ys t hat Children on-aite ue assumed to wade into those wateu during warm weather mont hs and are also assumed to s wim in the open waters of the swamp RA at J-8 9 There is no basis for this anumptionl The seeps are tiny and indeed the North

21 Although this alleged risk is not mentioned in the June 1993 Plan t he Companies feel obliged to eddress it i n these convnent1 because it may provide one of the bases foe remedy deciaiona

l The Endangerment Assessment performed for EPA i n ) connection with t he 1985 ROD ruled out risks associated with

contact exposure with s urface water because of the low levels of contaminants a nd t he fact that the water is not used for awhming SJt Enda ngerme nt Assessment (GCA 485)

Anna Jruko July U 199l PIQe

bullaeepbull wu dry during 1 site tour on July 14 1993 Then h no evidence to aupport an uaumption that children mayawin1 in the Sw1111p itaelf (or even that there il bullopen waterbull that il both accenible and deep enough for awhing) In fact the description of potential rhka in the September Ul5 JOD did not conaider this acenario tlndincr it even unlikely that aomeone would fall into the Swamp

The potential of hum to nearby nlidenta who come into contact with aoill aedimenta or water in the awampa muat be weighed acrainat the probability of people glinincr acebullbullbull to theae ann Aerial photoqupha of the aite ahow denae vegetation investi9ation teams have allo reported difficulty accessin9 some areu of the awamp In t he unlikely event a child adult or dog were to fall into the swamp ampKpoaure would be of short-duration to ulltively low levels of c hemicall in most cases lower than lppm

198~ ROD at S-

In ahort the surface water ingeation scenar io is fllfetched and ahould be disregarded

The filh ingestion risk if anythinq is even more remote The RA hypothesizes exposure to fhh from the Eut Pond and the Unnamed Swamp The hypothesized eKposure scenario deacribed in the RA at 4-9 is aa follows

1 Alleqed discussionsbull with bullnearby residents i nd icate the East Pond is stocked with Camefilh such as lar9e-mouth bass

J There h no evidence of actual contamination of ish tissue Rather the risk calculation is premiaed upon an essumed level of contamination in fiah tissue calculated usinq a PCB concentration detected at one location on one occasion Twelve other contemporaneous s urface water samples were neqative for PCBS The positive result was never replicated and is discounted in the RA at 6-2

-n = = ca

r

Anna J(nako July 29 199J Page 7

Z Prelibullinuy aquatic atudi indictte that the open water areaa of the UnnaMd Swamp 111y include VIM fhh and other fish

J The a toe king of the Pond incUcatea that the open ereu bullof the aitebull an fished occuionally and the huveated fish an consumed by the locll popuhtion

1 Century to the heuuy froM unidentified bull nearby reaidenta bull an inquhy of the Rhode Iahnd Department of Environmantol Management haa confirmed that the amall man-made Eut Pond hu not been atocked with gamefhh or any other fhh If there In fish in Eut Ponc1 then ia no evidence of dak auocilted with eating them u i ndi cated in the 1993 Ecological Rilk Aueument (bullERA) because aat Pond is not contaminated ERA at 5-8 Indeed the ERA used sediment from the Pond as a baCkJround reference RA at ~-7

2 The incorrect assumption ot the stoc king ot Eaat Pond was the only bull for anuming that fiahin9 occurs i n the Swamp Thus that assumption il invalicL

3 In any event there h no evidence that anyone fishes in the Swamp or that the fish then if there are a ny are large e noug h to eat Indeed there is no evidence of any open water in the Swamp that supports a population of edible fish ~ As the 1985 ROD points out the Swamp is lar9ely inaccessible

~I It appears that the only fish observed in the Swamp were sunfish and yellow perch seined at SW-10 ERA Appendix B at 52 Sunfish are small and the perch is described as very small The Report also states Warm weedy water may explain paucity of fish ld There is no evidence of contamination at SW-10 in any event See ERA Pivure 3-6

)

-n = = ca

Anna Jtnako July 29 un Page I

4 lven if it were uaumed that in9e1tion of fi a h froM the Swamp were reuonably likely the r il k aaaeaament aaaumea contarnnation of fiah tiaaue baaed upon concentrationbull in a few ueu o f the SwaMp where contanlination h the higheat There h no rationd buh for uaing these concentrations rather than an averave value in eatimating potantill tiuue contamination

Finally the Site poa no ecolovicll rhka As the Plan atatea at p ll No obvious symptoms of vegetation or ani1111l atreas were observed on the site or in the larger atudy area The ERA aupportl thil conclusion and states that in moat of the wetland and aquatic areaa where elevated levela of aedirnent andor aurflce water contaminantbull were detected the nora appears diverae and healthy and some wildlife activity wu evident ERA at 2-15 The ERA concluded that the risks to species populationbull in the vici nity of the site an insiQnificant ERA at 6-11 6-16 6-18 6-20 The 198~ ROO also concluded that because of low concentration of contaminantbull in the ponds the ettects on aquatic life in the ponds ia expected to be minima 1 bull lf8~ ROO at 6

2 Contrary To EPA Assertions The Site Presents Np Actual [ut yra Risk Tp Human Hllth

EPA hu made no claim that the overburden and shallow bedrock plumes will mionte further from t he site or that additional surface water bodies will be impacted in the future i The only riak cited by the Plan to juatify the

61 The Remedial Investigation Report concludea to the contrary that the contamination from the overburden and shallow bedrock plumes has reached t he limit of its expansion See RI at 4-l (nor have plume dimensions and locations chan9ed appreciably since (1983] RI at 4-~8 (extent of JOroundwater contami nat ion similar to that observed in past investigations surface water concentrations have decreased There is no evidence that there is a plume movin9 to the north or east but EPA proposes to install sentinel wells to provide further assurance that there will be no impact on residences in t hose areas

-n = = ca

Anna Jtuako July 29 1993 Pa9e

$ U Million remedy is the speculative hypothetiCil rhk that in the future residents 1111y use the C)roundwater from the preaently-i111pacted aquifer o r aurflce water from the Unnamed Swamp for drinkin9 water Plan at 11 As described below EPA hu failed to comply with the NCP and ita own guidance in ita reliance on such a rilk to juatify the propoaed remedy

Grgyndwttlr

Impac ted groundwater will never be used tbaent residential development on the eiQht-1cre dhpoul area or on the rehtively small amount of dry hnd between the diapoul area and t he Swamp Whi h the NCP s upports conservatism in rilk assessment it also requires t hat e xposure acenarioa be realistic This il true apecifica llywith respect to aasumptiona of future residential development and uae The Preamble to the NCP specific8lly states t hat future relidential use s hould not be nsumed where t he facta ahow that the probability o f resident ial development ia small

In general t he baseline riak aasesament will look at a future land use t ha t ia both ~ from land use development patterns and may be associated with the highest (most significant) risk i n o rder to be protective These considerations will lead to the assumption of residential uae as the future land use in many cases Res i dential land use assumptions generally result in the most conservative exposure estimates The assumption of residential land use is not a requirement of t he program but nther is an assumption that may be made bued on conservative but realistic erposures to ensure t hat

-n = = ca

Anna Jruko July n 1993 Q 10

reMdhs that ue ultiMately selected for the tte will be protective An auueptigo gf Cuturt nlidtnthl lind Ull MY not bt iultiChbll if tbt prgbability that tb1 aitt will auppgrt ruidtnthl u in tht future h 1r11ll

Preamble ~~red ReCJ 8666 8710 (19JO) (emphuh added)

PAI Guidance underacorea t he point that t zpoaure uaumptiona must be realistic Ita ~Guidance on Rilk ChiCICteriution for Jhk MaDICJIU a nd AIIIUOCI~ (292) says that e zpoaure aaaeasment s hould focua on ~the real world environmental acenarioa of people who may be ezposed to the a9ent under atudy ~ J4 at 13

Sin~ilerly in ita Risk Aueument Guidance for Superfund Volume I Human Heelth Evaluation Manual Supplement Guidance ~standard Defined Exposure Factorsbull (Interim rind J2~91 at 5) EPA s tates

In determininq the potential for future residential land u the RPM should consider hhtorical land use

~~~~~b~~~~CJ ~o~n~e~~~n~ 1t ~=~~~~~ent

11 EPA hu been crlticiud for making unreasonable assumptions 11 to future residential land use In recent testimony (June 23 1993) on remedy sehction iuues before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials of the Co~m~ittee on Enerqy and Corm~erce of the United States House of Representetives Deputy Administrator Robert M Sunman apparently responding to this criticism acknowledged bullt o practice future land use has often been assumed to be residential In some of these cases the edstinq and prior use of the land was not resident ial Unrulhtic anumgtigns aboyt fytyre land yse cguld significantly increue the cobulltbull gf cleanup withgyt cpDJDensunte benefiU Testimony at 30 (emphasis added) He went on to state that bullThe Aqency recoqnizes that [residential land use] is not a likely cenario for all

(Footnote continues on next page)

-n = = =

Annl ICUikO July 29 1993 Plge 11

The authortti eltbullbliah th1t a ite-apecific evidence Muat be vbullthered 1nd evelu1ted before po u i ble future relidenthl land uae c1n rve u the bnh t o r 1 finding thlt riaka juatily 1 remedy

The Riak AueaaMnt here doea not meet the requirementbull ot the NCP or EPA Guichnce becauae it ldla to uaesa on a lite-apecific buia whether r identhl development of the impacted 1n1 nuonably m1y be ezpected The Risk Aaaeaament contti na bullbull s unrn1ry of potenthl lind uae in t he re1aonably toreaeeable future tor each medii o f concern It the Picillo PICM bull RA at 4-9 Ita entire aummuy tor groundw1ter ia u follows

The Picillo rum study arebull ia c urrently zoned rural resident il l Sued on thil zoning 1nd the observ1tion of several newly built res i dences in the nearby uea it h pouibh that residences will be cons tructed in t he s tudy area It 1 future time Buildinq is ponible on approdmately 512 acres (40) of the 2 square mile at udy area Construction on the remaining 60 of the s tudy area may be reatricted by wetllnd protection reguhtiona The expansion o f residential housing may lead to the uae (u 1 potable weter source) of overburden a nd s h11l ow bedrock ground w1ter from the source and dist1 nt zones ot the contlminated plume 11 well u deep bedrock aquifer Given this

11 (Footnote continued f r om prev ious page)

sites a nd that different land use would result in different eapos ure scenarios as well We are current ly developinq a more definitive policy (to be issued i n October) One appro1ch being considered for t his guida nce is to state that generally the current land use at a site s hould be assumed to be the f uture land use unless there is persuasive i nformati on that shows that current land use is likely to c hange bull Testimony at 32

-n = = ca

r

Anna Juako July 29 un Page 12

aurnpti o n adult and c hild reddenta could b4l bullbullposed to conten~inaUd ground water

The only evidence cited in s upport o f the conclusion that f uture r identhl development il likely il that the 2-aqu tre mile study uea il zoned ruulnaident ial and that severe reddencea have been built in the neuby area There h no eVI luati o n of t he li keli hood of relidenthl development i n the impacted area it lt nd in puticular no evaluation of the suit ability of that uea for reaide ntial development or of t he availabili ty of other property in the vic inity thlt ia more acceuible to public roads nd utiliti and that co ul(l be developed leu e zpensivelyl Neither is there any aueument of lege and business i mpediment a to development Thus t he Ris k Aneument h detective i n this regard 1nd it does not provide 1 bn is tor an EPA conclusion that residential development m1y reasonably be ant icipated

b Syrhct WetJr

The only buis described i n the Rilk Assessment for 111uming thlt the surt1ce w1ter o f the Unn1med Sw1mp will be used for drinking w1ter ia thlt the Unn1med Swamp is c lnsifhd as Cllaa A dri nk ing w1ter by the Stlte RA at 4-5 4- 26 The purpose of the Rhode lahnd water quality at1ndacds set forth in Section 6 of the Rhode I a llnd Water Qu1lity ReQulati ons f o r Weter Poll ution Co ntrol is to bulldefine t he water qullity 90ala o f a water body or portion thereof by des ig na tin9 the use or uses tcLbLmJ of t he water 1nd by t t i ng criteria necessary to protect t he uses Water bulluality Regulations at S 61 (emphasis s upplied) Wa ters are assigned claasea with bulleach clns defined by t he moat sens i tive a nd therefore governin9 use1 wh ich it is ~ to protectbull 14 at S 62 (emphuis supplied) The classification says nothing

AI The site hu no public sewers or other utilities 1nd there is no i nd ication that future service is anticipated See LeBlanc Report at 2

-n = = ca

Anna lttasko July 29 lt93 Page 2

the Unnamed Swamp aa a dtinking watet supply [then) auch u would poae unacceptable long-term riakl to hurn health bull ld

It is on thil apecuhtive a nd purely hypothetical bull that EPA haa decided 1 $16 raillion nrnedy il appropriate hen The amp16 raillion will be spent 10 that hypothetical dri nking water wells can be installed in a small isolated acea on and neac the forbullr diapoaal acea at the Site and to allow for the hypothetical future u of s urface water from the Unnamed Swamp l ocated downgndient o f the Site EPA limply aaaumea theae future uaea for nowhere in the Remedial Invtivation (bullRt-) the reuibility Study (bullrsbull) the Rhk Aaaeaament (bullRAbull) o r i n any o ther relevant document il then an analysis of the likelihood that these future uaea will ever occur

EPA 1 improper assumption that vroundwater and surface water lilY be used for drinking water and the perceived need to restore the waten for thoae uaea are t he critical elements in ita selection of the remedy for this Site EPA itaelf acknowledges that dinct cont1ct with the soil do not give rise to an unacceptlble rilk rs at ES-2

This letter therefore makes the followincr point a

1 As EPA has recognized i n the Plan there are no cuuent actual risks to human health or the environment auochted with the Site

2 Contrary to EPA uaertiona the Site presents actual future risk to human health EPA has tailed to comply with the NCP and ita own ouidance documents by defaultincr to an ass umed future nsidential land use scenario that posits the use of impacted crroundwater and surface water for drinking water supplies It has not conducted any site-specific evaluation of whether this uae ia sufficiently likely that there exists a risk of the sort that juatifha a Superfund remedy like the one proposed here

3 If EPA had done the site-s pecific ana lysis required by the NCP and ita guidance it would have concluded that it ia highly unlikely that

-n = = ca

r

Anna Jtruko July 29 193 Page 3

there ever wi 11 be future uae of 9roundwater or aurface w1ter in the iMplcted uea and that accordingly no aubatantill remedy h appropriate

4 CRCLA lllowa EPA to ~elect and implerMnt 1 remedy only when there il a aigniticant riak or danger to human health or the environment The NCPa bullexpectation t h1t aqulfen will be restored to their beneficial u u drinking water auppliea doea not juatify a remedy in the absence of actual risk to human hellth

middot The Rhode lahnd water qu lity 1tandarda do not juatify a remedy in the abae nce of either c urcent oc future actual riak

6 Even it it were to be uaumed that a remedy wu juatified source control without 1 management of mignti on (pump-and-trnt) component s hould hne been proposed The rs co ncludes that the 1ource control component alond will cl81n up the aquifer i n 40 yean The manaqement of miqratio n component wi 11 accelerate clean-up by o nly 20 yean but would coat an additional $9 million Given t ha t future use of the impacted qroundwater a nd a urface water is unlikely there is no justification for spend inq an edcUtionel $9 million to expedite clean-up by 20 yean

7 It is particularly inappropriate to propose a pump-and-treat remedy where IPA hu concluded t hat ONAPLs are likely to be present The PS ecknowhdqes that the preaence of ONAPLs will prevent the 20-year clea n-up 90d from beiniJ met even with the pump-and-treat system

1 All EPA Has Acknowledged In The Plan There Are No Current Actual Risks To Hyman H11ltb Auociated With The Site

The Risk Auessment (ADL 493) (RAbull) concludea that there are no current actual risks to human health associated with soil IJroundwater sediment or air at the Site SJUt RA at sect531 Key factors relatinq to drinking water and surface water are described below

a-n = = ca

Annbull Jr11ko July 29 lftl rve t

Drinking Water

There il no current inveation of Site-impActed groundwAter or aurf1ce water SU ao RA at 5-30 Reddentill drinking w1ter walla ue loc1Ud upvud ient of the Site 1nd ue in the deep bedroc k 1quUer EPA hu defined three plumes in the 1h11low bedrock aquifer originltin from the former wute diapoul areu It the Picillo FarM

1 A north-no rthwesterly plume t hlt diach1res to s ur face water in t he Unn1med Sw1mp about 60 0 teet downg udient from t he dilpoul 1re1

2 A westerl y p lume th1t 1110 d hchuvea to t he Unn1rned Sw1mp 1bout 600 feet downvradhnt a nd

3 A sout hwes terly plume that d ilchuljjes to aurf1ce water in the Great Cedar Swamp about 3 000 feet down9t1dient f r om t he disposal are a

rs at 2-5 t o 2-9

These plumebull do not and will not threaten downQudient recepto rs The PS s t1tes tha t the plumes will dilc har9e t o s urface water in t he Swamps The re they are diluted by lar9e qu1ntitiea of c lean wate r The PS s tates that aa a reeult the plume dhc harg i n9 t o the Unnamed Swamp is bull likely (to be] diluted and o r degraded befo r e movi n9 downgradient t o Wh i tfo rd Pond bull FS a t 2- J Simi la rl y t he southwes t plume d ischarljles to s ur face wa te r i n t he Great Cedar Swamp whe re it is dilut ed be fore it edta the Swamp and tlows i nto Gr e a t Gr ass Po nd FS at 2-91 Wh itfo r d

11 The PS states that surface water does not appear to be a si9nif i c a nt t ranspo r t mecha nism FS at 2-49 See also RA at 2-11 (bullSu rface wate r does not appear to p rovide a sicJ nifica nt chemical t r ansport mec han ism since the primary compo unds are volatile and degraded or emitted to t he air soon afte r discharge from the grou ndwater bull )

-a-n = = ca

Annbull ICnako July 29 1993 Pbullgbull 5

1nd Grebullt Gnu Pondbull hiVe not been impbullcted by cont linltlon nor hive 1re11 downatre11111 of theM been 10 impbullcted 1915 1t00 1t 5 The ~A po1nta out th1t i n llct the Sw1mpa h1ve ahown 1 dgnific1nt chellicll concentr1tion deerbullbullbullbull over ti RA bullt 2middotH Future i111p1ct on the two Ponda il highly unlikely given the lforernentioned d1t1

In ahort the only imp1cted 1n1a IU (1) the diapoul uu 1t the Picillo FUll (2) bull am1ll 1ection of lind between the di apoaal 1n1 1nd t he Sw1mpa and (J) t he pointa i n the Sw1mpa where the plumea dilchuge to aurflce water Then ue no drinking w1te r we lla i n the impbullcted areas bullnd the aurflce w1te r in t he two Swampa ta not uaed for drinking water Aa bull reault end 11 EPA hn ac knowledged t here ia no c urrent ectuel riak eaaocilted with i ngestion of impacted ground weter o r aurtece Wlter Plln bullt 11 -a

b Surface WUac shyn The RA purports to ce lculate an elevated ciak derived

from current e~poaure related t o surface water neu the = Site- Thh alleged risk has two components = 1) ingeation of aurface watu in connection with swimming or ca wading end 2) fiah ingestion The claimed cucinogenic risks result primarily from potential ingestion of fil h

ror the following reasons there simply is no such risk The contaminant concentrationbull thet produce the alleged riak levels are found in the Swamp and the North and South Seepa The RA n ys t hat Children on-aite ue assumed to wade into those wateu during warm weather mont hs and are also assumed to s wim in the open waters of the swamp RA at J-8 9 There is no basis for this anumptionl The seeps are tiny and indeed the North

21 Although this alleged risk is not mentioned in the June 1993 Plan t he Companies feel obliged to eddress it i n these convnent1 because it may provide one of the bases foe remedy deciaiona

l The Endangerment Assessment performed for EPA i n ) connection with t he 1985 ROD ruled out risks associated with

contact exposure with s urface water because of the low levels of contaminants a nd t he fact that the water is not used for awhming SJt Enda ngerme nt Assessment (GCA 485)

Anna Jruko July U 199l PIQe

bullaeepbull wu dry during 1 site tour on July 14 1993 Then h no evidence to aupport an uaumption that children mayawin1 in the Sw1111p itaelf (or even that there il bullopen waterbull that il both accenible and deep enough for awhing) In fact the description of potential rhka in the September Ul5 JOD did not conaider this acenario tlndincr it even unlikely that aomeone would fall into the Swamp

The potential of hum to nearby nlidenta who come into contact with aoill aedimenta or water in the awampa muat be weighed acrainat the probability of people glinincr acebullbullbull to theae ann Aerial photoqupha of the aite ahow denae vegetation investi9ation teams have allo reported difficulty accessin9 some areu of the awamp In t he unlikely event a child adult or dog were to fall into the swamp ampKpoaure would be of short-duration to ulltively low levels of c hemicall in most cases lower than lppm

198~ ROD at S-

In ahort the surface water ingeation scenar io is fllfetched and ahould be disregarded

The filh ingestion risk if anythinq is even more remote The RA hypothesizes exposure to fhh from the Eut Pond and the Unnamed Swamp The hypothesized eKposure scenario deacribed in the RA at 4-9 is aa follows

1 Alleqed discussionsbull with bullnearby residents i nd icate the East Pond is stocked with Camefilh such as lar9e-mouth bass

J There h no evidence of actual contamination of ish tissue Rather the risk calculation is premiaed upon an essumed level of contamination in fiah tissue calculated usinq a PCB concentration detected at one location on one occasion Twelve other contemporaneous s urface water samples were neqative for PCBS The positive result was never replicated and is discounted in the RA at 6-2

-n = = ca

r

Anna J(nako July 29 199J Page 7

Z Prelibullinuy aquatic atudi indictte that the open water areaa of the UnnaMd Swamp 111y include VIM fhh and other fish

J The a toe king of the Pond incUcatea that the open ereu bullof the aitebull an fished occuionally and the huveated fish an consumed by the locll popuhtion

1 Century to the heuuy froM unidentified bull nearby reaidenta bull an inquhy of the Rhode Iahnd Department of Environmantol Management haa confirmed that the amall man-made Eut Pond hu not been atocked with gamefhh or any other fhh If there In fish in Eut Ponc1 then ia no evidence of dak auocilted with eating them u i ndi cated in the 1993 Ecological Rilk Aueument (bullERA) because aat Pond is not contaminated ERA at 5-8 Indeed the ERA used sediment from the Pond as a baCkJround reference RA at ~-7

2 The incorrect assumption ot the stoc king ot Eaat Pond was the only bull for anuming that fiahin9 occurs i n the Swamp Thus that assumption il invalicL

3 In any event there h no evidence that anyone fishes in the Swamp or that the fish then if there are a ny are large e noug h to eat Indeed there is no evidence of any open water in the Swamp that supports a population of edible fish ~ As the 1985 ROD points out the Swamp is lar9ely inaccessible

~I It appears that the only fish observed in the Swamp were sunfish and yellow perch seined at SW-10 ERA Appendix B at 52 Sunfish are small and the perch is described as very small The Report also states Warm weedy water may explain paucity of fish ld There is no evidence of contamination at SW-10 in any event See ERA Pivure 3-6

)

-n = = ca

Anna Jtnako July 29 un Page I

4 lven if it were uaumed that in9e1tion of fi a h froM the Swamp were reuonably likely the r il k aaaeaament aaaumea contarnnation of fiah tiaaue baaed upon concentrationbull in a few ueu o f the SwaMp where contanlination h the higheat There h no rationd buh for uaing these concentrations rather than an averave value in eatimating potantill tiuue contamination

Finally the Site poa no ecolovicll rhka As the Plan atatea at p ll No obvious symptoms of vegetation or ani1111l atreas were observed on the site or in the larger atudy area The ERA aupportl thil conclusion and states that in moat of the wetland and aquatic areaa where elevated levela of aedirnent andor aurflce water contaminantbull were detected the nora appears diverae and healthy and some wildlife activity wu evident ERA at 2-15 The ERA concluded that the risks to species populationbull in the vici nity of the site an insiQnificant ERA at 6-11 6-16 6-18 6-20 The 198~ ROO also concluded that because of low concentration of contaminantbull in the ponds the ettects on aquatic life in the ponds ia expected to be minima 1 bull lf8~ ROO at 6

2 Contrary To EPA Assertions The Site Presents Np Actual [ut yra Risk Tp Human Hllth

EPA hu made no claim that the overburden and shallow bedrock plumes will mionte further from t he site or that additional surface water bodies will be impacted in the future i The only riak cited by the Plan to juatify the

61 The Remedial Investigation Report concludea to the contrary that the contamination from the overburden and shallow bedrock plumes has reached t he limit of its expansion See RI at 4-l (nor have plume dimensions and locations chan9ed appreciably since (1983] RI at 4-~8 (extent of JOroundwater contami nat ion similar to that observed in past investigations surface water concentrations have decreased There is no evidence that there is a plume movin9 to the north or east but EPA proposes to install sentinel wells to provide further assurance that there will be no impact on residences in t hose areas

-n = = ca

Anna Jtuako July 29 1993 Pa9e

$ U Million remedy is the speculative hypothetiCil rhk that in the future residents 1111y use the C)roundwater from the preaently-i111pacted aquifer o r aurflce water from the Unnamed Swamp for drinkin9 water Plan at 11 As described below EPA hu failed to comply with the NCP and ita own guidance in ita reliance on such a rilk to juatify the propoaed remedy

Grgyndwttlr

Impac ted groundwater will never be used tbaent residential development on the eiQht-1cre dhpoul area or on the rehtively small amount of dry hnd between the diapoul area and t he Swamp Whi h the NCP s upports conservatism in rilk assessment it also requires t hat e xposure acenarioa be realistic This il true apecifica llywith respect to aasumptiona of future residential development and uae The Preamble to the NCP specific8lly states t hat future relidential use s hould not be nsumed where t he facta ahow that the probability o f resident ial development ia small

In general t he baseline riak aasesament will look at a future land use t ha t ia both ~ from land use development patterns and may be associated with the highest (most significant) risk i n o rder to be protective These considerations will lead to the assumption of residential uae as the future land use in many cases Res i dential land use assumptions generally result in the most conservative exposure estimates The assumption of residential land use is not a requirement of t he program but nther is an assumption that may be made bued on conservative but realistic erposures to ensure t hat

-n = = ca

Anna Jruko July n 1993 Q 10

reMdhs that ue ultiMately selected for the tte will be protective An auueptigo gf Cuturt nlidtnthl lind Ull MY not bt iultiChbll if tbt prgbability that tb1 aitt will auppgrt ruidtnthl u in tht future h 1r11ll

Preamble ~~red ReCJ 8666 8710 (19JO) (emphuh added)

PAI Guidance underacorea t he point that t zpoaure uaumptiona must be realistic Ita ~Guidance on Rilk ChiCICteriution for Jhk MaDICJIU a nd AIIIUOCI~ (292) says that e zpoaure aaaeasment s hould focua on ~the real world environmental acenarioa of people who may be ezposed to the a9ent under atudy ~ J4 at 13

Sin~ilerly in ita Risk Aueument Guidance for Superfund Volume I Human Heelth Evaluation Manual Supplement Guidance ~standard Defined Exposure Factorsbull (Interim rind J2~91 at 5) EPA s tates

In determininq the potential for future residential land u the RPM should consider hhtorical land use

~~~~~b~~~~CJ ~o~n~e~~~n~ 1t ~=~~~~~ent

11 EPA hu been crlticiud for making unreasonable assumptions 11 to future residential land use In recent testimony (June 23 1993) on remedy sehction iuues before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials of the Co~m~ittee on Enerqy and Corm~erce of the United States House of Representetives Deputy Administrator Robert M Sunman apparently responding to this criticism acknowledged bullt o practice future land use has often been assumed to be residential In some of these cases the edstinq and prior use of the land was not resident ial Unrulhtic anumgtigns aboyt fytyre land yse cguld significantly increue the cobulltbull gf cleanup withgyt cpDJDensunte benefiU Testimony at 30 (emphasis added) He went on to state that bullThe Aqency recoqnizes that [residential land use] is not a likely cenario for all

(Footnote continues on next page)

-n = = =

Annl ICUikO July 29 1993 Plge 11

The authortti eltbullbliah th1t a ite-apecific evidence Muat be vbullthered 1nd evelu1ted before po u i ble future relidenthl land uae c1n rve u the bnh t o r 1 finding thlt riaka juatily 1 remedy

The Riak AueaaMnt here doea not meet the requirementbull ot the NCP or EPA Guichnce becauae it ldla to uaesa on a lite-apecific buia whether r identhl development of the impacted 1n1 nuonably m1y be ezpected The Risk Aaaeaament contti na bullbull s unrn1ry of potenthl lind uae in t he re1aonably toreaeeable future tor each medii o f concern It the Picillo PICM bull RA at 4-9 Ita entire aummuy tor groundw1ter ia u follows

The Picillo rum study arebull ia c urrently zoned rural resident il l Sued on thil zoning 1nd the observ1tion of several newly built res i dences in the nearby uea it h pouibh that residences will be cons tructed in t he s tudy area It 1 future time Buildinq is ponible on approdmately 512 acres (40) of the 2 square mile at udy area Construction on the remaining 60 of the s tudy area may be reatricted by wetllnd protection reguhtiona The expansion o f residential housing may lead to the uae (u 1 potable weter source) of overburden a nd s h11l ow bedrock ground w1ter from the source and dist1 nt zones ot the contlminated plume 11 well u deep bedrock aquifer Given this

11 (Footnote continued f r om prev ious page)

sites a nd that different land use would result in different eapos ure scenarios as well We are current ly developinq a more definitive policy (to be issued i n October) One appro1ch being considered for t his guida nce is to state that generally the current land use at a site s hould be assumed to be the f uture land use unless there is persuasive i nformati on that shows that current land use is likely to c hange bull Testimony at 32

-n = = ca

r

Anna Juako July 29 un Page 12

aurnpti o n adult and c hild reddenta could b4l bullbullposed to conten~inaUd ground water

The only evidence cited in s upport o f the conclusion that f uture r identhl development il likely il that the 2-aqu tre mile study uea il zoned ruulnaident ial and that severe reddencea have been built in the neuby area There h no eVI luati o n of t he li keli hood of relidenthl development i n the impacted area it lt nd in puticular no evaluation of the suit ability of that uea for reaide ntial development or of t he availabili ty of other property in the vic inity thlt ia more acceuible to public roads nd utiliti and that co ul(l be developed leu e zpensivelyl Neither is there any aueument of lege and business i mpediment a to development Thus t he Ris k Aneument h detective i n this regard 1nd it does not provide 1 bn is tor an EPA conclusion that residential development m1y reasonably be ant icipated

b Syrhct WetJr

The only buis described i n the Rilk Assessment for 111uming thlt the surt1ce w1ter o f the Unn1med Sw1mp will be used for drinking w1ter ia thlt the Unn1med Swamp is c lnsifhd as Cllaa A dri nk ing w1ter by the Stlte RA at 4-5 4- 26 The purpose of the Rhode lahnd water quality at1ndacds set forth in Section 6 of the Rhode I a llnd Water Qu1lity ReQulati ons f o r Weter Poll ution Co ntrol is to bulldefine t he water qullity 90ala o f a water body or portion thereof by des ig na tin9 the use or uses tcLbLmJ of t he water 1nd by t t i ng criteria necessary to protect t he uses Water bulluality Regulations at S 61 (emphasis s upplied) Wa ters are assigned claasea with bulleach clns defined by t he moat sens i tive a nd therefore governin9 use1 wh ich it is ~ to protectbull 14 at S 62 (emphuis supplied) The classification says nothing

AI The site hu no public sewers or other utilities 1nd there is no i nd ication that future service is anticipated See LeBlanc Report at 2

-n = = ca

r

Anna Jtruko July 29 193 Page 3

there ever wi 11 be future uae of 9roundwater or aurface w1ter in the iMplcted uea and that accordingly no aubatantill remedy h appropriate

4 CRCLA lllowa EPA to ~elect and implerMnt 1 remedy only when there il a aigniticant riak or danger to human health or the environment The NCPa bullexpectation t h1t aqulfen will be restored to their beneficial u u drinking water auppliea doea not juatify a remedy in the absence of actual risk to human hellth

middot The Rhode lahnd water qu lity 1tandarda do not juatify a remedy in the abae nce of either c urcent oc future actual riak

6 Even it it were to be uaumed that a remedy wu juatified source control without 1 management of mignti on (pump-and-trnt) component s hould hne been proposed The rs co ncludes that the 1ource control component alond will cl81n up the aquifer i n 40 yean The manaqement of miqratio n component wi 11 accelerate clean-up by o nly 20 yean but would coat an additional $9 million Given t ha t future use of the impacted qroundwater a nd a urface water is unlikely there is no justification for spend inq an edcUtionel $9 million to expedite clean-up by 20 yean

7 It is particularly inappropriate to propose a pump-and-treat remedy where IPA hu concluded t hat ONAPLs are likely to be present The PS ecknowhdqes that the preaence of ONAPLs will prevent the 20-year clea n-up 90d from beiniJ met even with the pump-and-treat system

1 All EPA Has Acknowledged In The Plan There Are No Current Actual Risks To Hyman H11ltb Auociated With The Site

The Risk Auessment (ADL 493) (RAbull) concludea that there are no current actual risks to human health associated with soil IJroundwater sediment or air at the Site SJUt RA at sect531 Key factors relatinq to drinking water and surface water are described below

a-n = = ca

Annbull Jr11ko July 29 lftl rve t

Drinking Water

There il no current inveation of Site-impActed groundwAter or aurf1ce water SU ao RA at 5-30 Reddentill drinking w1ter walla ue loc1Ud upvud ient of the Site 1nd ue in the deep bedroc k 1quUer EPA hu defined three plumes in the 1h11low bedrock aquifer originltin from the former wute diapoul areu It the Picillo FarM

1 A north-no rthwesterly plume t hlt diach1res to s ur face water in t he Unn1med Sw1mp about 60 0 teet downg udient from t he dilpoul 1re1

2 A westerl y p lume th1t 1110 d hchuvea to t he Unn1rned Sw1mp 1bout 600 feet downvradhnt a nd

3 A sout hwes terly plume that d ilchuljjes to aurf1ce water in the Great Cedar Swamp about 3 000 feet down9t1dient f r om t he disposal are a

rs at 2-5 t o 2-9

These plumebull do not and will not threaten downQudient recepto rs The PS s t1tes tha t the plumes will dilc har9e t o s urface water in t he Swamps The re they are diluted by lar9e qu1ntitiea of c lean wate r The PS s tates that aa a reeult the plume dhc harg i n9 t o the Unnamed Swamp is bull likely (to be] diluted and o r degraded befo r e movi n9 downgradient t o Wh i tfo rd Pond bull FS a t 2- J Simi la rl y t he southwes t plume d ischarljles to s ur face wa te r i n t he Great Cedar Swamp whe re it is dilut ed be fore it edta the Swamp and tlows i nto Gr e a t Gr ass Po nd FS at 2-91 Wh itfo r d

11 The PS states that surface water does not appear to be a si9nif i c a nt t ranspo r t mecha nism FS at 2-49 See also RA at 2-11 (bullSu rface wate r does not appear to p rovide a sicJ nifica nt chemical t r ansport mec han ism since the primary compo unds are volatile and degraded or emitted to t he air soon afte r discharge from the grou ndwater bull )

-a-n = = ca

Annbull ICnako July 29 1993 Pbullgbull 5

1nd Grebullt Gnu Pondbull hiVe not been impbullcted by cont linltlon nor hive 1re11 downatre11111 of theM been 10 impbullcted 1915 1t00 1t 5 The ~A po1nta out th1t i n llct the Sw1mpa h1ve ahown 1 dgnific1nt chellicll concentr1tion deerbullbullbullbull over ti RA bullt 2middotH Future i111p1ct on the two Ponda il highly unlikely given the lforernentioned d1t1

In ahort the only imp1cted 1n1a IU (1) the diapoul uu 1t the Picillo FUll (2) bull am1ll 1ection of lind between the di apoaal 1n1 1nd t he Sw1mpa and (J) t he pointa i n the Sw1mpa where the plumea dilchuge to aurflce water Then ue no drinking w1te r we lla i n the impbullcted areas bullnd the aurflce w1te r in t he two Swampa ta not uaed for drinking water Aa bull reault end 11 EPA hn ac knowledged t here ia no c urrent ectuel riak eaaocilted with i ngestion of impacted ground weter o r aurtece Wlter Plln bullt 11 -a

b Surface WUac shyn The RA purports to ce lculate an elevated ciak derived

from current e~poaure related t o surface water neu the = Site- Thh alleged risk has two components = 1) ingeation of aurface watu in connection with swimming or ca wading end 2) fiah ingestion The claimed cucinogenic risks result primarily from potential ingestion of fil h

ror the following reasons there simply is no such risk The contaminant concentrationbull thet produce the alleged riak levels are found in the Swamp and the North and South Seepa The RA n ys t hat Children on-aite ue assumed to wade into those wateu during warm weather mont hs and are also assumed to s wim in the open waters of the swamp RA at J-8 9 There is no basis for this anumptionl The seeps are tiny and indeed the North

21 Although this alleged risk is not mentioned in the June 1993 Plan t he Companies feel obliged to eddress it i n these convnent1 because it may provide one of the bases foe remedy deciaiona

l The Endangerment Assessment performed for EPA i n ) connection with t he 1985 ROD ruled out risks associated with

contact exposure with s urface water because of the low levels of contaminants a nd t he fact that the water is not used for awhming SJt Enda ngerme nt Assessment (GCA 485)

Anna Jruko July U 199l PIQe

bullaeepbull wu dry during 1 site tour on July 14 1993 Then h no evidence to aupport an uaumption that children mayawin1 in the Sw1111p itaelf (or even that there il bullopen waterbull that il both accenible and deep enough for awhing) In fact the description of potential rhka in the September Ul5 JOD did not conaider this acenario tlndincr it even unlikely that aomeone would fall into the Swamp

The potential of hum to nearby nlidenta who come into contact with aoill aedimenta or water in the awampa muat be weighed acrainat the probability of people glinincr acebullbullbull to theae ann Aerial photoqupha of the aite ahow denae vegetation investi9ation teams have allo reported difficulty accessin9 some areu of the awamp In t he unlikely event a child adult or dog were to fall into the swamp ampKpoaure would be of short-duration to ulltively low levels of c hemicall in most cases lower than lppm

198~ ROD at S-

In ahort the surface water ingeation scenar io is fllfetched and ahould be disregarded

The filh ingestion risk if anythinq is even more remote The RA hypothesizes exposure to fhh from the Eut Pond and the Unnamed Swamp The hypothesized eKposure scenario deacribed in the RA at 4-9 is aa follows

1 Alleqed discussionsbull with bullnearby residents i nd icate the East Pond is stocked with Camefilh such as lar9e-mouth bass

J There h no evidence of actual contamination of ish tissue Rather the risk calculation is premiaed upon an essumed level of contamination in fiah tissue calculated usinq a PCB concentration detected at one location on one occasion Twelve other contemporaneous s urface water samples were neqative for PCBS The positive result was never replicated and is discounted in the RA at 6-2

-n = = ca

r

Anna J(nako July 29 199J Page 7

Z Prelibullinuy aquatic atudi indictte that the open water areaa of the UnnaMd Swamp 111y include VIM fhh and other fish

J The a toe king of the Pond incUcatea that the open ereu bullof the aitebull an fished occuionally and the huveated fish an consumed by the locll popuhtion

1 Century to the heuuy froM unidentified bull nearby reaidenta bull an inquhy of the Rhode Iahnd Department of Environmantol Management haa confirmed that the amall man-made Eut Pond hu not been atocked with gamefhh or any other fhh If there In fish in Eut Ponc1 then ia no evidence of dak auocilted with eating them u i ndi cated in the 1993 Ecological Rilk Aueument (bullERA) because aat Pond is not contaminated ERA at 5-8 Indeed the ERA used sediment from the Pond as a baCkJround reference RA at ~-7

2 The incorrect assumption ot the stoc king ot Eaat Pond was the only bull for anuming that fiahin9 occurs i n the Swamp Thus that assumption il invalicL

3 In any event there h no evidence that anyone fishes in the Swamp or that the fish then if there are a ny are large e noug h to eat Indeed there is no evidence of any open water in the Swamp that supports a population of edible fish ~ As the 1985 ROD points out the Swamp is lar9ely inaccessible

~I It appears that the only fish observed in the Swamp were sunfish and yellow perch seined at SW-10 ERA Appendix B at 52 Sunfish are small and the perch is described as very small The Report also states Warm weedy water may explain paucity of fish ld There is no evidence of contamination at SW-10 in any event See ERA Pivure 3-6

)

-n = = ca

Anna Jtnako July 29 un Page I

4 lven if it were uaumed that in9e1tion of fi a h froM the Swamp were reuonably likely the r il k aaaeaament aaaumea contarnnation of fiah tiaaue baaed upon concentrationbull in a few ueu o f the SwaMp where contanlination h the higheat There h no rationd buh for uaing these concentrations rather than an averave value in eatimating potantill tiuue contamination

Finally the Site poa no ecolovicll rhka As the Plan atatea at p ll No obvious symptoms of vegetation or ani1111l atreas were observed on the site or in the larger atudy area The ERA aupportl thil conclusion and states that in moat of the wetland and aquatic areaa where elevated levela of aedirnent andor aurflce water contaminantbull were detected the nora appears diverae and healthy and some wildlife activity wu evident ERA at 2-15 The ERA concluded that the risks to species populationbull in the vici nity of the site an insiQnificant ERA at 6-11 6-16 6-18 6-20 The 198~ ROO also concluded that because of low concentration of contaminantbull in the ponds the ettects on aquatic life in the ponds ia expected to be minima 1 bull lf8~ ROO at 6

2 Contrary To EPA Assertions The Site Presents Np Actual [ut yra Risk Tp Human Hllth

EPA hu made no claim that the overburden and shallow bedrock plumes will mionte further from t he site or that additional surface water bodies will be impacted in the future i The only riak cited by the Plan to juatify the

61 The Remedial Investigation Report concludea to the contrary that the contamination from the overburden and shallow bedrock plumes has reached t he limit of its expansion See RI at 4-l (nor have plume dimensions and locations chan9ed appreciably since (1983] RI at 4-~8 (extent of JOroundwater contami nat ion similar to that observed in past investigations surface water concentrations have decreased There is no evidence that there is a plume movin9 to the north or east but EPA proposes to install sentinel wells to provide further assurance that there will be no impact on residences in t hose areas

-n = = ca

Anna Jtuako July 29 1993 Pa9e

$ U Million remedy is the speculative hypothetiCil rhk that in the future residents 1111y use the C)roundwater from the preaently-i111pacted aquifer o r aurflce water from the Unnamed Swamp for drinkin9 water Plan at 11 As described below EPA hu failed to comply with the NCP and ita own guidance in ita reliance on such a rilk to juatify the propoaed remedy

Grgyndwttlr

Impac ted groundwater will never be used tbaent residential development on the eiQht-1cre dhpoul area or on the rehtively small amount of dry hnd between the diapoul area and t he Swamp Whi h the NCP s upports conservatism in rilk assessment it also requires t hat e xposure acenarioa be realistic This il true apecifica llywith respect to aasumptiona of future residential development and uae The Preamble to the NCP specific8lly states t hat future relidential use s hould not be nsumed where t he facta ahow that the probability o f resident ial development ia small

In general t he baseline riak aasesament will look at a future land use t ha t ia both ~ from land use development patterns and may be associated with the highest (most significant) risk i n o rder to be protective These considerations will lead to the assumption of residential uae as the future land use in many cases Res i dential land use assumptions generally result in the most conservative exposure estimates The assumption of residential land use is not a requirement of t he program but nther is an assumption that may be made bued on conservative but realistic erposures to ensure t hat

-n = = ca

Anna Jruko July n 1993 Q 10

reMdhs that ue ultiMately selected for the tte will be protective An auueptigo gf Cuturt nlidtnthl lind Ull MY not bt iultiChbll if tbt prgbability that tb1 aitt will auppgrt ruidtnthl u in tht future h 1r11ll

Preamble ~~red ReCJ 8666 8710 (19JO) (emphuh added)

PAI Guidance underacorea t he point that t zpoaure uaumptiona must be realistic Ita ~Guidance on Rilk ChiCICteriution for Jhk MaDICJIU a nd AIIIUOCI~ (292) says that e zpoaure aaaeasment s hould focua on ~the real world environmental acenarioa of people who may be ezposed to the a9ent under atudy ~ J4 at 13

Sin~ilerly in ita Risk Aueument Guidance for Superfund Volume I Human Heelth Evaluation Manual Supplement Guidance ~standard Defined Exposure Factorsbull (Interim rind J2~91 at 5) EPA s tates

In determininq the potential for future residential land u the RPM should consider hhtorical land use

~~~~~b~~~~CJ ~o~n~e~~~n~ 1t ~=~~~~~ent

11 EPA hu been crlticiud for making unreasonable assumptions 11 to future residential land use In recent testimony (June 23 1993) on remedy sehction iuues before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials of the Co~m~ittee on Enerqy and Corm~erce of the United States House of Representetives Deputy Administrator Robert M Sunman apparently responding to this criticism acknowledged bullt o practice future land use has often been assumed to be residential In some of these cases the edstinq and prior use of the land was not resident ial Unrulhtic anumgtigns aboyt fytyre land yse cguld significantly increue the cobulltbull gf cleanup withgyt cpDJDensunte benefiU Testimony at 30 (emphasis added) He went on to state that bullThe Aqency recoqnizes that [residential land use] is not a likely cenario for all

(Footnote continues on next page)

-n = = =

Annl ICUikO July 29 1993 Plge 11

The authortti eltbullbliah th1t a ite-apecific evidence Muat be vbullthered 1nd evelu1ted before po u i ble future relidenthl land uae c1n rve u the bnh t o r 1 finding thlt riaka juatily 1 remedy

The Riak AueaaMnt here doea not meet the requirementbull ot the NCP or EPA Guichnce becauae it ldla to uaesa on a lite-apecific buia whether r identhl development of the impacted 1n1 nuonably m1y be ezpected The Risk Aaaeaament contti na bullbull s unrn1ry of potenthl lind uae in t he re1aonably toreaeeable future tor each medii o f concern It the Picillo PICM bull RA at 4-9 Ita entire aummuy tor groundw1ter ia u follows

The Picillo rum study arebull ia c urrently zoned rural resident il l Sued on thil zoning 1nd the observ1tion of several newly built res i dences in the nearby uea it h pouibh that residences will be cons tructed in t he s tudy area It 1 future time Buildinq is ponible on approdmately 512 acres (40) of the 2 square mile at udy area Construction on the remaining 60 of the s tudy area may be reatricted by wetllnd protection reguhtiona The expansion o f residential housing may lead to the uae (u 1 potable weter source) of overburden a nd s h11l ow bedrock ground w1ter from the source and dist1 nt zones ot the contlminated plume 11 well u deep bedrock aquifer Given this

11 (Footnote continued f r om prev ious page)

sites a nd that different land use would result in different eapos ure scenarios as well We are current ly developinq a more definitive policy (to be issued i n October) One appro1ch being considered for t his guida nce is to state that generally the current land use at a site s hould be assumed to be the f uture land use unless there is persuasive i nformati on that shows that current land use is likely to c hange bull Testimony at 32

-n = = ca

r

Anna Juako July 29 un Page 12

aurnpti o n adult and c hild reddenta could b4l bullbullposed to conten~inaUd ground water

The only evidence cited in s upport o f the conclusion that f uture r identhl development il likely il that the 2-aqu tre mile study uea il zoned ruulnaident ial and that severe reddencea have been built in the neuby area There h no eVI luati o n of t he li keli hood of relidenthl development i n the impacted area it lt nd in puticular no evaluation of the suit ability of that uea for reaide ntial development or of t he availabili ty of other property in the vic inity thlt ia more acceuible to public roads nd utiliti and that co ul(l be developed leu e zpensivelyl Neither is there any aueument of lege and business i mpediment a to development Thus t he Ris k Aneument h detective i n this regard 1nd it does not provide 1 bn is tor an EPA conclusion that residential development m1y reasonably be ant icipated

b Syrhct WetJr

The only buis described i n the Rilk Assessment for 111uming thlt the surt1ce w1ter o f the Unn1med Sw1mp will be used for drinking w1ter ia thlt the Unn1med Swamp is c lnsifhd as Cllaa A dri nk ing w1ter by the Stlte RA at 4-5 4- 26 The purpose of the Rhode lahnd water quality at1ndacds set forth in Section 6 of the Rhode I a llnd Water Qu1lity ReQulati ons f o r Weter Poll ution Co ntrol is to bulldefine t he water qullity 90ala o f a water body or portion thereof by des ig na tin9 the use or uses tcLbLmJ of t he water 1nd by t t i ng criteria necessary to protect t he uses Water bulluality Regulations at S 61 (emphasis s upplied) Wa ters are assigned claasea with bulleach clns defined by t he moat sens i tive a nd therefore governin9 use1 wh ich it is ~ to protectbull 14 at S 62 (emphuis supplied) The classification says nothing

AI The site hu no public sewers or other utilities 1nd there is no i nd ication that future service is anticipated See LeBlanc Report at 2

-n = = ca

Annbull Jr11ko July 29 lftl rve t

Drinking Water

There il no current inveation of Site-impActed groundwAter or aurf1ce water SU ao RA at 5-30 Reddentill drinking w1ter walla ue loc1Ud upvud ient of the Site 1nd ue in the deep bedroc k 1quUer EPA hu defined three plumes in the 1h11low bedrock aquifer originltin from the former wute diapoul areu It the Picillo FarM

1 A north-no rthwesterly plume t hlt diach1res to s ur face water in t he Unn1med Sw1mp about 60 0 teet downg udient from t he dilpoul 1re1

2 A westerl y p lume th1t 1110 d hchuvea to t he Unn1rned Sw1mp 1bout 600 feet downvradhnt a nd

3 A sout hwes terly plume that d ilchuljjes to aurf1ce water in the Great Cedar Swamp about 3 000 feet down9t1dient f r om t he disposal are a

rs at 2-5 t o 2-9

These plumebull do not and will not threaten downQudient recepto rs The PS s t1tes tha t the plumes will dilc har9e t o s urface water in t he Swamps The re they are diluted by lar9e qu1ntitiea of c lean wate r The PS s tates that aa a reeult the plume dhc harg i n9 t o the Unnamed Swamp is bull likely (to be] diluted and o r degraded befo r e movi n9 downgradient t o Wh i tfo rd Pond bull FS a t 2- J Simi la rl y t he southwes t plume d ischarljles to s ur face wa te r i n t he Great Cedar Swamp whe re it is dilut ed be fore it edta the Swamp and tlows i nto Gr e a t Gr ass Po nd FS at 2-91 Wh itfo r d

11 The PS states that surface water does not appear to be a si9nif i c a nt t ranspo r t mecha nism FS at 2-49 See also RA at 2-11 (bullSu rface wate r does not appear to p rovide a sicJ nifica nt chemical t r ansport mec han ism since the primary compo unds are volatile and degraded or emitted to t he air soon afte r discharge from the grou ndwater bull )

-a-n = = ca

Annbull ICnako July 29 1993 Pbullgbull 5

1nd Grebullt Gnu Pondbull hiVe not been impbullcted by cont linltlon nor hive 1re11 downatre11111 of theM been 10 impbullcted 1915 1t00 1t 5 The ~A po1nta out th1t i n llct the Sw1mpa h1ve ahown 1 dgnific1nt chellicll concentr1tion deerbullbullbullbull over ti RA bullt 2middotH Future i111p1ct on the two Ponda il highly unlikely given the lforernentioned d1t1

In ahort the only imp1cted 1n1a IU (1) the diapoul uu 1t the Picillo FUll (2) bull am1ll 1ection of lind between the di apoaal 1n1 1nd t he Sw1mpa and (J) t he pointa i n the Sw1mpa where the plumea dilchuge to aurflce water Then ue no drinking w1te r we lla i n the impbullcted areas bullnd the aurflce w1te r in t he two Swampa ta not uaed for drinking water Aa bull reault end 11 EPA hn ac knowledged t here ia no c urrent ectuel riak eaaocilted with i ngestion of impacted ground weter o r aurtece Wlter Plln bullt 11 -a

b Surface WUac shyn The RA purports to ce lculate an elevated ciak derived

from current e~poaure related t o surface water neu the = Site- Thh alleged risk has two components = 1) ingeation of aurface watu in connection with swimming or ca wading end 2) fiah ingestion The claimed cucinogenic risks result primarily from potential ingestion of fil h

ror the following reasons there simply is no such risk The contaminant concentrationbull thet produce the alleged riak levels are found in the Swamp and the North and South Seepa The RA n ys t hat Children on-aite ue assumed to wade into those wateu during warm weather mont hs and are also assumed to s wim in the open waters of the swamp RA at J-8 9 There is no basis for this anumptionl The seeps are tiny and indeed the North

21 Although this alleged risk is not mentioned in the June 1993 Plan t he Companies feel obliged to eddress it i n these convnent1 because it may provide one of the bases foe remedy deciaiona

l The Endangerment Assessment performed for EPA i n ) connection with t he 1985 ROD ruled out risks associated with

contact exposure with s urface water because of the low levels of contaminants a nd t he fact that the water is not used for awhming SJt Enda ngerme nt Assessment (GCA 485)

Anna Jruko July U 199l PIQe

bullaeepbull wu dry during 1 site tour on July 14 1993 Then h no evidence to aupport an uaumption that children mayawin1 in the Sw1111p itaelf (or even that there il bullopen waterbull that il both accenible and deep enough for awhing) In fact the description of potential rhka in the September Ul5 JOD did not conaider this acenario tlndincr it even unlikely that aomeone would fall into the Swamp

The potential of hum to nearby nlidenta who come into contact with aoill aedimenta or water in the awampa muat be weighed acrainat the probability of people glinincr acebullbullbull to theae ann Aerial photoqupha of the aite ahow denae vegetation investi9ation teams have allo reported difficulty accessin9 some areu of the awamp In t he unlikely event a child adult or dog were to fall into the swamp ampKpoaure would be of short-duration to ulltively low levels of c hemicall in most cases lower than lppm

198~ ROD at S-

In ahort the surface water ingeation scenar io is fllfetched and ahould be disregarded

The filh ingestion risk if anythinq is even more remote The RA hypothesizes exposure to fhh from the Eut Pond and the Unnamed Swamp The hypothesized eKposure scenario deacribed in the RA at 4-9 is aa follows

1 Alleqed discussionsbull with bullnearby residents i nd icate the East Pond is stocked with Camefilh such as lar9e-mouth bass

J There h no evidence of actual contamination of ish tissue Rather the risk calculation is premiaed upon an essumed level of contamination in fiah tissue calculated usinq a PCB concentration detected at one location on one occasion Twelve other contemporaneous s urface water samples were neqative for PCBS The positive result was never replicated and is discounted in the RA at 6-2

-n = = ca

r

Anna J(nako July 29 199J Page 7

Z Prelibullinuy aquatic atudi indictte that the open water areaa of the UnnaMd Swamp 111y include VIM fhh and other fish

J The a toe king of the Pond incUcatea that the open ereu bullof the aitebull an fished occuionally and the huveated fish an consumed by the locll popuhtion

1 Century to the heuuy froM unidentified bull nearby reaidenta bull an inquhy of the Rhode Iahnd Department of Environmantol Management haa confirmed that the amall man-made Eut Pond hu not been atocked with gamefhh or any other fhh If there In fish in Eut Ponc1 then ia no evidence of dak auocilted with eating them u i ndi cated in the 1993 Ecological Rilk Aueument (bullERA) because aat Pond is not contaminated ERA at 5-8 Indeed the ERA used sediment from the Pond as a baCkJround reference RA at ~-7

2 The incorrect assumption ot the stoc king ot Eaat Pond was the only bull for anuming that fiahin9 occurs i n the Swamp Thus that assumption il invalicL

3 In any event there h no evidence that anyone fishes in the Swamp or that the fish then if there are a ny are large e noug h to eat Indeed there is no evidence of any open water in the Swamp that supports a population of edible fish ~ As the 1985 ROD points out the Swamp is lar9ely inaccessible

~I It appears that the only fish observed in the Swamp were sunfish and yellow perch seined at SW-10 ERA Appendix B at 52 Sunfish are small and the perch is described as very small The Report also states Warm weedy water may explain paucity of fish ld There is no evidence of contamination at SW-10 in any event See ERA Pivure 3-6

)

-n = = ca

Anna Jtnako July 29 un Page I

4 lven if it were uaumed that in9e1tion of fi a h froM the Swamp were reuonably likely the r il k aaaeaament aaaumea contarnnation of fiah tiaaue baaed upon concentrationbull in a few ueu o f the SwaMp where contanlination h the higheat There h no rationd buh for uaing these concentrations rather than an averave value in eatimating potantill tiuue contamination

Finally the Site poa no ecolovicll rhka As the Plan atatea at p ll No obvious symptoms of vegetation or ani1111l atreas were observed on the site or in the larger atudy area The ERA aupportl thil conclusion and states that in moat of the wetland and aquatic areaa where elevated levela of aedirnent andor aurflce water contaminantbull were detected the nora appears diverae and healthy and some wildlife activity wu evident ERA at 2-15 The ERA concluded that the risks to species populationbull in the vici nity of the site an insiQnificant ERA at 6-11 6-16 6-18 6-20 The 198~ ROO also concluded that because of low concentration of contaminantbull in the ponds the ettects on aquatic life in the ponds ia expected to be minima 1 bull lf8~ ROO at 6

2 Contrary To EPA Assertions The Site Presents Np Actual [ut yra Risk Tp Human Hllth

EPA hu made no claim that the overburden and shallow bedrock plumes will mionte further from t he site or that additional surface water bodies will be impacted in the future i The only riak cited by the Plan to juatify the

61 The Remedial Investigation Report concludea to the contrary that the contamination from the overburden and shallow bedrock plumes has reached t he limit of its expansion See RI at 4-l (nor have plume dimensions and locations chan9ed appreciably since (1983] RI at 4-~8 (extent of JOroundwater contami nat ion similar to that observed in past investigations surface water concentrations have decreased There is no evidence that there is a plume movin9 to the north or east but EPA proposes to install sentinel wells to provide further assurance that there will be no impact on residences in t hose areas

-n = = ca

Anna Jtuako July 29 1993 Pa9e

$ U Million remedy is the speculative hypothetiCil rhk that in the future residents 1111y use the C)roundwater from the preaently-i111pacted aquifer o r aurflce water from the Unnamed Swamp for drinkin9 water Plan at 11 As described below EPA hu failed to comply with the NCP and ita own guidance in ita reliance on such a rilk to juatify the propoaed remedy

Grgyndwttlr

Impac ted groundwater will never be used tbaent residential development on the eiQht-1cre dhpoul area or on the rehtively small amount of dry hnd between the diapoul area and t he Swamp Whi h the NCP s upports conservatism in rilk assessment it also requires t hat e xposure acenarioa be realistic This il true apecifica llywith respect to aasumptiona of future residential development and uae The Preamble to the NCP specific8lly states t hat future relidential use s hould not be nsumed where t he facta ahow that the probability o f resident ial development ia small

In general t he baseline riak aasesament will look at a future land use t ha t ia both ~ from land use development patterns and may be associated with the highest (most significant) risk i n o rder to be protective These considerations will lead to the assumption of residential uae as the future land use in many cases Res i dential land use assumptions generally result in the most conservative exposure estimates The assumption of residential land use is not a requirement of t he program but nther is an assumption that may be made bued on conservative but realistic erposures to ensure t hat

-n = = ca

Anna Jruko July n 1993 Q 10

reMdhs that ue ultiMately selected for the tte will be protective An auueptigo gf Cuturt nlidtnthl lind Ull MY not bt iultiChbll if tbt prgbability that tb1 aitt will auppgrt ruidtnthl u in tht future h 1r11ll

Preamble ~~red ReCJ 8666 8710 (19JO) (emphuh added)

PAI Guidance underacorea t he point that t zpoaure uaumptiona must be realistic Ita ~Guidance on Rilk ChiCICteriution for Jhk MaDICJIU a nd AIIIUOCI~ (292) says that e zpoaure aaaeasment s hould focua on ~the real world environmental acenarioa of people who may be ezposed to the a9ent under atudy ~ J4 at 13

Sin~ilerly in ita Risk Aueument Guidance for Superfund Volume I Human Heelth Evaluation Manual Supplement Guidance ~standard Defined Exposure Factorsbull (Interim rind J2~91 at 5) EPA s tates

In determininq the potential for future residential land u the RPM should consider hhtorical land use

~~~~~b~~~~CJ ~o~n~e~~~n~ 1t ~=~~~~~ent

11 EPA hu been crlticiud for making unreasonable assumptions 11 to future residential land use In recent testimony (June 23 1993) on remedy sehction iuues before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials of the Co~m~ittee on Enerqy and Corm~erce of the United States House of Representetives Deputy Administrator Robert M Sunman apparently responding to this criticism acknowledged bullt o practice future land use has often been assumed to be residential In some of these cases the edstinq and prior use of the land was not resident ial Unrulhtic anumgtigns aboyt fytyre land yse cguld significantly increue the cobulltbull gf cleanup withgyt cpDJDensunte benefiU Testimony at 30 (emphasis added) He went on to state that bullThe Aqency recoqnizes that [residential land use] is not a likely cenario for all

(Footnote continues on next page)

-n = = =

Annl ICUikO July 29 1993 Plge 11

The authortti eltbullbliah th1t a ite-apecific evidence Muat be vbullthered 1nd evelu1ted before po u i ble future relidenthl land uae c1n rve u the bnh t o r 1 finding thlt riaka juatily 1 remedy

The Riak AueaaMnt here doea not meet the requirementbull ot the NCP or EPA Guichnce becauae it ldla to uaesa on a lite-apecific buia whether r identhl development of the impacted 1n1 nuonably m1y be ezpected The Risk Aaaeaament contti na bullbull s unrn1ry of potenthl lind uae in t he re1aonably toreaeeable future tor each medii o f concern It the Picillo PICM bull RA at 4-9 Ita entire aummuy tor groundw1ter ia u follows

The Picillo rum study arebull ia c urrently zoned rural resident il l Sued on thil zoning 1nd the observ1tion of several newly built res i dences in the nearby uea it h pouibh that residences will be cons tructed in t he s tudy area It 1 future time Buildinq is ponible on approdmately 512 acres (40) of the 2 square mile at udy area Construction on the remaining 60 of the s tudy area may be reatricted by wetllnd protection reguhtiona The expansion o f residential housing may lead to the uae (u 1 potable weter source) of overburden a nd s h11l ow bedrock ground w1ter from the source and dist1 nt zones ot the contlminated plume 11 well u deep bedrock aquifer Given this

11 (Footnote continued f r om prev ious page)

sites a nd that different land use would result in different eapos ure scenarios as well We are current ly developinq a more definitive policy (to be issued i n October) One appro1ch being considered for t his guida nce is to state that generally the current land use at a site s hould be assumed to be the f uture land use unless there is persuasive i nformati on that shows that current land use is likely to c hange bull Testimony at 32

-n = = ca

r

Anna Juako July 29 un Page 12

aurnpti o n adult and c hild reddenta could b4l bullbullposed to conten~inaUd ground water

The only evidence cited in s upport o f the conclusion that f uture r identhl development il likely il that the 2-aqu tre mile study uea il zoned ruulnaident ial and that severe reddencea have been built in the neuby area There h no eVI luati o n of t he li keli hood of relidenthl development i n the impacted area it lt nd in puticular no evaluation of the suit ability of that uea for reaide ntial development or of t he availabili ty of other property in the vic inity thlt ia more acceuible to public roads nd utiliti and that co ul(l be developed leu e zpensivelyl Neither is there any aueument of lege and business i mpediment a to development Thus t he Ris k Aneument h detective i n this regard 1nd it does not provide 1 bn is tor an EPA conclusion that residential development m1y reasonably be ant icipated

b Syrhct WetJr

The only buis described i n the Rilk Assessment for 111uming thlt the surt1ce w1ter o f the Unn1med Sw1mp will be used for drinking w1ter ia thlt the Unn1med Swamp is c lnsifhd as Cllaa A dri nk ing w1ter by the Stlte RA at 4-5 4- 26 The purpose of the Rhode lahnd water quality at1ndacds set forth in Section 6 of the Rhode I a llnd Water Qu1lity ReQulati ons f o r Weter Poll ution Co ntrol is to bulldefine t he water qullity 90ala o f a water body or portion thereof by des ig na tin9 the use or uses tcLbLmJ of t he water 1nd by t t i ng criteria necessary to protect t he uses Water bulluality Regulations at S 61 (emphasis s upplied) Wa ters are assigned claasea with bulleach clns defined by t he moat sens i tive a nd therefore governin9 use1 wh ich it is ~ to protectbull 14 at S 62 (emphuis supplied) The classification says nothing

AI The site hu no public sewers or other utilities 1nd there is no i nd ication that future service is anticipated See LeBlanc Report at 2

-n = = ca

Annbull ICnako July 29 1993 Pbullgbull 5

1nd Grebullt Gnu Pondbull hiVe not been impbullcted by cont linltlon nor hive 1re11 downatre11111 of theM been 10 impbullcted 1915 1t00 1t 5 The ~A po1nta out th1t i n llct the Sw1mpa h1ve ahown 1 dgnific1nt chellicll concentr1tion deerbullbullbullbull over ti RA bullt 2middotH Future i111p1ct on the two Ponda il highly unlikely given the lforernentioned d1t1

In ahort the only imp1cted 1n1a IU (1) the diapoul uu 1t the Picillo FUll (2) bull am1ll 1ection of lind between the di apoaal 1n1 1nd t he Sw1mpa and (J) t he pointa i n the Sw1mpa where the plumea dilchuge to aurflce water Then ue no drinking w1te r we lla i n the impbullcted areas bullnd the aurflce w1te r in t he two Swampa ta not uaed for drinking water Aa bull reault end 11 EPA hn ac knowledged t here ia no c urrent ectuel riak eaaocilted with i ngestion of impacted ground weter o r aurtece Wlter Plln bullt 11 -a

b Surface WUac shyn The RA purports to ce lculate an elevated ciak derived

from current e~poaure related t o surface water neu the = Site- Thh alleged risk has two components = 1) ingeation of aurface watu in connection with swimming or ca wading end 2) fiah ingestion The claimed cucinogenic risks result primarily from potential ingestion of fil h

ror the following reasons there simply is no such risk The contaminant concentrationbull thet produce the alleged riak levels are found in the Swamp and the North and South Seepa The RA n ys t hat Children on-aite ue assumed to wade into those wateu during warm weather mont hs and are also assumed to s wim in the open waters of the swamp RA at J-8 9 There is no basis for this anumptionl The seeps are tiny and indeed the North

21 Although this alleged risk is not mentioned in the June 1993 Plan t he Companies feel obliged to eddress it i n these convnent1 because it may provide one of the bases foe remedy deciaiona

l The Endangerment Assessment performed for EPA i n ) connection with t he 1985 ROD ruled out risks associated with

contact exposure with s urface water because of the low levels of contaminants a nd t he fact that the water is not used for awhming SJt Enda ngerme nt Assessment (GCA 485)

Anna Jruko July U 199l PIQe

bullaeepbull wu dry during 1 site tour on July 14 1993 Then h no evidence to aupport an uaumption that children mayawin1 in the Sw1111p itaelf (or even that there il bullopen waterbull that il both accenible and deep enough for awhing) In fact the description of potential rhka in the September Ul5 JOD did not conaider this acenario tlndincr it even unlikely that aomeone would fall into the Swamp

The potential of hum to nearby nlidenta who come into contact with aoill aedimenta or water in the awampa muat be weighed acrainat the probability of people glinincr acebullbullbull to theae ann Aerial photoqupha of the aite ahow denae vegetation investi9ation teams have allo reported difficulty accessin9 some areu of the awamp In t he unlikely event a child adult or dog were to fall into the swamp ampKpoaure would be of short-duration to ulltively low levels of c hemicall in most cases lower than lppm

198~ ROD at S-

In ahort the surface water ingeation scenar io is fllfetched and ahould be disregarded

The filh ingestion risk if anythinq is even more remote The RA hypothesizes exposure to fhh from the Eut Pond and the Unnamed Swamp The hypothesized eKposure scenario deacribed in the RA at 4-9 is aa follows

1 Alleqed discussionsbull with bullnearby residents i nd icate the East Pond is stocked with Camefilh such as lar9e-mouth bass

J There h no evidence of actual contamination of ish tissue Rather the risk calculation is premiaed upon an essumed level of contamination in fiah tissue calculated usinq a PCB concentration detected at one location on one occasion Twelve other contemporaneous s urface water samples were neqative for PCBS The positive result was never replicated and is discounted in the RA at 6-2

-n = = ca

r

Anna J(nako July 29 199J Page 7

Z Prelibullinuy aquatic atudi indictte that the open water areaa of the UnnaMd Swamp 111y include VIM fhh and other fish

J The a toe king of the Pond incUcatea that the open ereu bullof the aitebull an fished occuionally and the huveated fish an consumed by the locll popuhtion

1 Century to the heuuy froM unidentified bull nearby reaidenta bull an inquhy of the Rhode Iahnd Department of Environmantol Management haa confirmed that the amall man-made Eut Pond hu not been atocked with gamefhh or any other fhh If there In fish in Eut Ponc1 then ia no evidence of dak auocilted with eating them u i ndi cated in the 1993 Ecological Rilk Aueument (bullERA) because aat Pond is not contaminated ERA at 5-8 Indeed the ERA used sediment from the Pond as a baCkJround reference RA at ~-7

2 The incorrect assumption ot the stoc king ot Eaat Pond was the only bull for anuming that fiahin9 occurs i n the Swamp Thus that assumption il invalicL

3 In any event there h no evidence that anyone fishes in the Swamp or that the fish then if there are a ny are large e noug h to eat Indeed there is no evidence of any open water in the Swamp that supports a population of edible fish ~ As the 1985 ROD points out the Swamp is lar9ely inaccessible

~I It appears that the only fish observed in the Swamp were sunfish and yellow perch seined at SW-10 ERA Appendix B at 52 Sunfish are small and the perch is described as very small The Report also states Warm weedy water may explain paucity of fish ld There is no evidence of contamination at SW-10 in any event See ERA Pivure 3-6

)

-n = = ca

Anna Jtnako July 29 un Page I

4 lven if it were uaumed that in9e1tion of fi a h froM the Swamp were reuonably likely the r il k aaaeaament aaaumea contarnnation of fiah tiaaue baaed upon concentrationbull in a few ueu o f the SwaMp where contanlination h the higheat There h no rationd buh for uaing these concentrations rather than an averave value in eatimating potantill tiuue contamination

Finally the Site poa no ecolovicll rhka As the Plan atatea at p ll No obvious symptoms of vegetation or ani1111l atreas were observed on the site or in the larger atudy area The ERA aupportl thil conclusion and states that in moat of the wetland and aquatic areaa where elevated levela of aedirnent andor aurflce water contaminantbull were detected the nora appears diverae and healthy and some wildlife activity wu evident ERA at 2-15 The ERA concluded that the risks to species populationbull in the vici nity of the site an insiQnificant ERA at 6-11 6-16 6-18 6-20 The 198~ ROO also concluded that because of low concentration of contaminantbull in the ponds the ettects on aquatic life in the ponds ia expected to be minima 1 bull lf8~ ROO at 6

2 Contrary To EPA Assertions The Site Presents Np Actual [ut yra Risk Tp Human Hllth

EPA hu made no claim that the overburden and shallow bedrock plumes will mionte further from t he site or that additional surface water bodies will be impacted in the future i The only riak cited by the Plan to juatify the

61 The Remedial Investigation Report concludea to the contrary that the contamination from the overburden and shallow bedrock plumes has reached t he limit of its expansion See RI at 4-l (nor have plume dimensions and locations chan9ed appreciably since (1983] RI at 4-~8 (extent of JOroundwater contami nat ion similar to that observed in past investigations surface water concentrations have decreased There is no evidence that there is a plume movin9 to the north or east but EPA proposes to install sentinel wells to provide further assurance that there will be no impact on residences in t hose areas

-n = = ca

Anna Jtuako July 29 1993 Pa9e

$ U Million remedy is the speculative hypothetiCil rhk that in the future residents 1111y use the C)roundwater from the preaently-i111pacted aquifer o r aurflce water from the Unnamed Swamp for drinkin9 water Plan at 11 As described below EPA hu failed to comply with the NCP and ita own guidance in ita reliance on such a rilk to juatify the propoaed remedy

Grgyndwttlr

Impac ted groundwater will never be used tbaent residential development on the eiQht-1cre dhpoul area or on the rehtively small amount of dry hnd between the diapoul area and t he Swamp Whi h the NCP s upports conservatism in rilk assessment it also requires t hat e xposure acenarioa be realistic This il true apecifica llywith respect to aasumptiona of future residential development and uae The Preamble to the NCP specific8lly states t hat future relidential use s hould not be nsumed where t he facta ahow that the probability o f resident ial development ia small

In general t he baseline riak aasesament will look at a future land use t ha t ia both ~ from land use development patterns and may be associated with the highest (most significant) risk i n o rder to be protective These considerations will lead to the assumption of residential uae as the future land use in many cases Res i dential land use assumptions generally result in the most conservative exposure estimates The assumption of residential land use is not a requirement of t he program but nther is an assumption that may be made bued on conservative but realistic erposures to ensure t hat

-n = = ca

Anna Jruko July n 1993 Q 10

reMdhs that ue ultiMately selected for the tte will be protective An auueptigo gf Cuturt nlidtnthl lind Ull MY not bt iultiChbll if tbt prgbability that tb1 aitt will auppgrt ruidtnthl u in tht future h 1r11ll

Preamble ~~red ReCJ 8666 8710 (19JO) (emphuh added)

PAI Guidance underacorea t he point that t zpoaure uaumptiona must be realistic Ita ~Guidance on Rilk ChiCICteriution for Jhk MaDICJIU a nd AIIIUOCI~ (292) says that e zpoaure aaaeasment s hould focua on ~the real world environmental acenarioa of people who may be ezposed to the a9ent under atudy ~ J4 at 13

Sin~ilerly in ita Risk Aueument Guidance for Superfund Volume I Human Heelth Evaluation Manual Supplement Guidance ~standard Defined Exposure Factorsbull (Interim rind J2~91 at 5) EPA s tates

In determininq the potential for future residential land u the RPM should consider hhtorical land use

~~~~~b~~~~CJ ~o~n~e~~~n~ 1t ~=~~~~~ent

11 EPA hu been crlticiud for making unreasonable assumptions 11 to future residential land use In recent testimony (June 23 1993) on remedy sehction iuues before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials of the Co~m~ittee on Enerqy and Corm~erce of the United States House of Representetives Deputy Administrator Robert M Sunman apparently responding to this criticism acknowledged bullt o practice future land use has often been assumed to be residential In some of these cases the edstinq and prior use of the land was not resident ial Unrulhtic anumgtigns aboyt fytyre land yse cguld significantly increue the cobulltbull gf cleanup withgyt cpDJDensunte benefiU Testimony at 30 (emphasis added) He went on to state that bullThe Aqency recoqnizes that [residential land use] is not a likely cenario for all

(Footnote continues on next page)

-n = = =

Annl ICUikO July 29 1993 Plge 11

The authortti eltbullbliah th1t a ite-apecific evidence Muat be vbullthered 1nd evelu1ted before po u i ble future relidenthl land uae c1n rve u the bnh t o r 1 finding thlt riaka juatily 1 remedy

The Riak AueaaMnt here doea not meet the requirementbull ot the NCP or EPA Guichnce becauae it ldla to uaesa on a lite-apecific buia whether r identhl development of the impacted 1n1 nuonably m1y be ezpected The Risk Aaaeaament contti na bullbull s unrn1ry of potenthl lind uae in t he re1aonably toreaeeable future tor each medii o f concern It the Picillo PICM bull RA at 4-9 Ita entire aummuy tor groundw1ter ia u follows

The Picillo rum study arebull ia c urrently zoned rural resident il l Sued on thil zoning 1nd the observ1tion of several newly built res i dences in the nearby uea it h pouibh that residences will be cons tructed in t he s tudy area It 1 future time Buildinq is ponible on approdmately 512 acres (40) of the 2 square mile at udy area Construction on the remaining 60 of the s tudy area may be reatricted by wetllnd protection reguhtiona The expansion o f residential housing may lead to the uae (u 1 potable weter source) of overburden a nd s h11l ow bedrock ground w1ter from the source and dist1 nt zones ot the contlminated plume 11 well u deep bedrock aquifer Given this

11 (Footnote continued f r om prev ious page)

sites a nd that different land use would result in different eapos ure scenarios as well We are current ly developinq a more definitive policy (to be issued i n October) One appro1ch being considered for t his guida nce is to state that generally the current land use at a site s hould be assumed to be the f uture land use unless there is persuasive i nformati on that shows that current land use is likely to c hange bull Testimony at 32

-n = = ca

r

Anna Juako July 29 un Page 12

aurnpti o n adult and c hild reddenta could b4l bullbullposed to conten~inaUd ground water

The only evidence cited in s upport o f the conclusion that f uture r identhl development il likely il that the 2-aqu tre mile study uea il zoned ruulnaident ial and that severe reddencea have been built in the neuby area There h no eVI luati o n of t he li keli hood of relidenthl development i n the impacted area it lt nd in puticular no evaluation of the suit ability of that uea for reaide ntial development or of t he availabili ty of other property in the vic inity thlt ia more acceuible to public roads nd utiliti and that co ul(l be developed leu e zpensivelyl Neither is there any aueument of lege and business i mpediment a to development Thus t he Ris k Aneument h detective i n this regard 1nd it does not provide 1 bn is tor an EPA conclusion that residential development m1y reasonably be ant icipated

b Syrhct WetJr

The only buis described i n the Rilk Assessment for 111uming thlt the surt1ce w1ter o f the Unn1med Sw1mp will be used for drinking w1ter ia thlt the Unn1med Swamp is c lnsifhd as Cllaa A dri nk ing w1ter by the Stlte RA at 4-5 4- 26 The purpose of the Rhode lahnd water quality at1ndacds set forth in Section 6 of the Rhode I a llnd Water Qu1lity ReQulati ons f o r Weter Poll ution Co ntrol is to bulldefine t he water qullity 90ala o f a water body or portion thereof by des ig na tin9 the use or uses tcLbLmJ of t he water 1nd by t t i ng criteria necessary to protect t he uses Water bulluality Regulations at S 61 (emphasis s upplied) Wa ters are assigned claasea with bulleach clns defined by t he moat sens i tive a nd therefore governin9 use1 wh ich it is ~ to protectbull 14 at S 62 (emphuis supplied) The classification says nothing

AI The site hu no public sewers or other utilities 1nd there is no i nd ication that future service is anticipated See LeBlanc Report at 2

-n = = ca

Anna Jruko July U 199l PIQe

bullaeepbull wu dry during 1 site tour on July 14 1993 Then h no evidence to aupport an uaumption that children mayawin1 in the Sw1111p itaelf (or even that there il bullopen waterbull that il both accenible and deep enough for awhing) In fact the description of potential rhka in the September Ul5 JOD did not conaider this acenario tlndincr it even unlikely that aomeone would fall into the Swamp

The potential of hum to nearby nlidenta who come into contact with aoill aedimenta or water in the awampa muat be weighed acrainat the probability of people glinincr acebullbullbull to theae ann Aerial photoqupha of the aite ahow denae vegetation investi9ation teams have allo reported difficulty accessin9 some areu of the awamp In t he unlikely event a child adult or dog were to fall into the swamp ampKpoaure would be of short-duration to ulltively low levels of c hemicall in most cases lower than lppm

198~ ROD at S-

In ahort the surface water ingeation scenar io is fllfetched and ahould be disregarded

The filh ingestion risk if anythinq is even more remote The RA hypothesizes exposure to fhh from the Eut Pond and the Unnamed Swamp The hypothesized eKposure scenario deacribed in the RA at 4-9 is aa follows

1 Alleqed discussionsbull with bullnearby residents i nd icate the East Pond is stocked with Camefilh such as lar9e-mouth bass

J There h no evidence of actual contamination of ish tissue Rather the risk calculation is premiaed upon an essumed level of contamination in fiah tissue calculated usinq a PCB concentration detected at one location on one occasion Twelve other contemporaneous s urface water samples were neqative for PCBS The positive result was never replicated and is discounted in the RA at 6-2

-n = = ca

r

Anna J(nako July 29 199J Page 7

Z Prelibullinuy aquatic atudi indictte that the open water areaa of the UnnaMd Swamp 111y include VIM fhh and other fish

J The a toe king of the Pond incUcatea that the open ereu bullof the aitebull an fished occuionally and the huveated fish an consumed by the locll popuhtion

1 Century to the heuuy froM unidentified bull nearby reaidenta bull an inquhy of the Rhode Iahnd Department of Environmantol Management haa confirmed that the amall man-made Eut Pond hu not been atocked with gamefhh or any other fhh If there In fish in Eut Ponc1 then ia no evidence of dak auocilted with eating them u i ndi cated in the 1993 Ecological Rilk Aueument (bullERA) because aat Pond is not contaminated ERA at 5-8 Indeed the ERA used sediment from the Pond as a baCkJround reference RA at ~-7

2 The incorrect assumption ot the stoc king ot Eaat Pond was the only bull for anuming that fiahin9 occurs i n the Swamp Thus that assumption il invalicL

3 In any event there h no evidence that anyone fishes in the Swamp or that the fish then if there are a ny are large e noug h to eat Indeed there is no evidence of any open water in the Swamp that supports a population of edible fish ~ As the 1985 ROD points out the Swamp is lar9ely inaccessible

~I It appears that the only fish observed in the Swamp were sunfish and yellow perch seined at SW-10 ERA Appendix B at 52 Sunfish are small and the perch is described as very small The Report also states Warm weedy water may explain paucity of fish ld There is no evidence of contamination at SW-10 in any event See ERA Pivure 3-6

)

-n = = ca

Anna Jtnako July 29 un Page I

4 lven if it were uaumed that in9e1tion of fi a h froM the Swamp were reuonably likely the r il k aaaeaament aaaumea contarnnation of fiah tiaaue baaed upon concentrationbull in a few ueu o f the SwaMp where contanlination h the higheat There h no rationd buh for uaing these concentrations rather than an averave value in eatimating potantill tiuue contamination

Finally the Site poa no ecolovicll rhka As the Plan atatea at p ll No obvious symptoms of vegetation or ani1111l atreas were observed on the site or in the larger atudy area The ERA aupportl thil conclusion and states that in moat of the wetland and aquatic areaa where elevated levela of aedirnent andor aurflce water contaminantbull were detected the nora appears diverae and healthy and some wildlife activity wu evident ERA at 2-15 The ERA concluded that the risks to species populationbull in the vici nity of the site an insiQnificant ERA at 6-11 6-16 6-18 6-20 The 198~ ROO also concluded that because of low concentration of contaminantbull in the ponds the ettects on aquatic life in the ponds ia expected to be minima 1 bull lf8~ ROO at 6

2 Contrary To EPA Assertions The Site Presents Np Actual [ut yra Risk Tp Human Hllth

EPA hu made no claim that the overburden and shallow bedrock plumes will mionte further from t he site or that additional surface water bodies will be impacted in the future i The only riak cited by the Plan to juatify the

61 The Remedial Investigation Report concludea to the contrary that the contamination from the overburden and shallow bedrock plumes has reached t he limit of its expansion See RI at 4-l (nor have plume dimensions and locations chan9ed appreciably since (1983] RI at 4-~8 (extent of JOroundwater contami nat ion similar to that observed in past investigations surface water concentrations have decreased There is no evidence that there is a plume movin9 to the north or east but EPA proposes to install sentinel wells to provide further assurance that there will be no impact on residences in t hose areas

-n = = ca

Anna Jtuako July 29 1993 Pa9e

$ U Million remedy is the speculative hypothetiCil rhk that in the future residents 1111y use the C)roundwater from the preaently-i111pacted aquifer o r aurflce water from the Unnamed Swamp for drinkin9 water Plan at 11 As described below EPA hu failed to comply with the NCP and ita own guidance in ita reliance on such a rilk to juatify the propoaed remedy

Grgyndwttlr

Impac ted groundwater will never be used tbaent residential development on the eiQht-1cre dhpoul area or on the rehtively small amount of dry hnd between the diapoul area and t he Swamp Whi h the NCP s upports conservatism in rilk assessment it also requires t hat e xposure acenarioa be realistic This il true apecifica llywith respect to aasumptiona of future residential development and uae The Preamble to the NCP specific8lly states t hat future relidential use s hould not be nsumed where t he facta ahow that the probability o f resident ial development ia small

In general t he baseline riak aasesament will look at a future land use t ha t ia both ~ from land use development patterns and may be associated with the highest (most significant) risk i n o rder to be protective These considerations will lead to the assumption of residential uae as the future land use in many cases Res i dential land use assumptions generally result in the most conservative exposure estimates The assumption of residential land use is not a requirement of t he program but nther is an assumption that may be made bued on conservative but realistic erposures to ensure t hat

-n = = ca

Anna Jruko July n 1993 Q 10

reMdhs that ue ultiMately selected for the tte will be protective An auueptigo gf Cuturt nlidtnthl lind Ull MY not bt iultiChbll if tbt prgbability that tb1 aitt will auppgrt ruidtnthl u in tht future h 1r11ll

Preamble ~~red ReCJ 8666 8710 (19JO) (emphuh added)

PAI Guidance underacorea t he point that t zpoaure uaumptiona must be realistic Ita ~Guidance on Rilk ChiCICteriution for Jhk MaDICJIU a nd AIIIUOCI~ (292) says that e zpoaure aaaeasment s hould focua on ~the real world environmental acenarioa of people who may be ezposed to the a9ent under atudy ~ J4 at 13

Sin~ilerly in ita Risk Aueument Guidance for Superfund Volume I Human Heelth Evaluation Manual Supplement Guidance ~standard Defined Exposure Factorsbull (Interim rind J2~91 at 5) EPA s tates

In determininq the potential for future residential land u the RPM should consider hhtorical land use

~~~~~b~~~~CJ ~o~n~e~~~n~ 1t ~=~~~~~ent

11 EPA hu been crlticiud for making unreasonable assumptions 11 to future residential land use In recent testimony (June 23 1993) on remedy sehction iuues before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials of the Co~m~ittee on Enerqy and Corm~erce of the United States House of Representetives Deputy Administrator Robert M Sunman apparently responding to this criticism acknowledged bullt o practice future land use has often been assumed to be residential In some of these cases the edstinq and prior use of the land was not resident ial Unrulhtic anumgtigns aboyt fytyre land yse cguld significantly increue the cobulltbull gf cleanup withgyt cpDJDensunte benefiU Testimony at 30 (emphasis added) He went on to state that bullThe Aqency recoqnizes that [residential land use] is not a likely cenario for all

(Footnote continues on next page)

-n = = =

Annl ICUikO July 29 1993 Plge 11

The authortti eltbullbliah th1t a ite-apecific evidence Muat be vbullthered 1nd evelu1ted before po u i ble future relidenthl land uae c1n rve u the bnh t o r 1 finding thlt riaka juatily 1 remedy

The Riak AueaaMnt here doea not meet the requirementbull ot the NCP or EPA Guichnce becauae it ldla to uaesa on a lite-apecific buia whether r identhl development of the impacted 1n1 nuonably m1y be ezpected The Risk Aaaeaament contti na bullbull s unrn1ry of potenthl lind uae in t he re1aonably toreaeeable future tor each medii o f concern It the Picillo PICM bull RA at 4-9 Ita entire aummuy tor groundw1ter ia u follows

The Picillo rum study arebull ia c urrently zoned rural resident il l Sued on thil zoning 1nd the observ1tion of several newly built res i dences in the nearby uea it h pouibh that residences will be cons tructed in t he s tudy area It 1 future time Buildinq is ponible on approdmately 512 acres (40) of the 2 square mile at udy area Construction on the remaining 60 of the s tudy area may be reatricted by wetllnd protection reguhtiona The expansion o f residential housing may lead to the uae (u 1 potable weter source) of overburden a nd s h11l ow bedrock ground w1ter from the source and dist1 nt zones ot the contlminated plume 11 well u deep bedrock aquifer Given this

11 (Footnote continued f r om prev ious page)

sites a nd that different land use would result in different eapos ure scenarios as well We are current ly developinq a more definitive policy (to be issued i n October) One appro1ch being considered for t his guida nce is to state that generally the current land use at a site s hould be assumed to be the f uture land use unless there is persuasive i nformati on that shows that current land use is likely to c hange bull Testimony at 32

-n = = ca

r

Anna Juako July 29 un Page 12

aurnpti o n adult and c hild reddenta could b4l bullbullposed to conten~inaUd ground water

The only evidence cited in s upport o f the conclusion that f uture r identhl development il likely il that the 2-aqu tre mile study uea il zoned ruulnaident ial and that severe reddencea have been built in the neuby area There h no eVI luati o n of t he li keli hood of relidenthl development i n the impacted area it lt nd in puticular no evaluation of the suit ability of that uea for reaide ntial development or of t he availabili ty of other property in the vic inity thlt ia more acceuible to public roads nd utiliti and that co ul(l be developed leu e zpensivelyl Neither is there any aueument of lege and business i mpediment a to development Thus t he Ris k Aneument h detective i n this regard 1nd it does not provide 1 bn is tor an EPA conclusion that residential development m1y reasonably be ant icipated

b Syrhct WetJr

The only buis described i n the Rilk Assessment for 111uming thlt the surt1ce w1ter o f the Unn1med Sw1mp will be used for drinking w1ter ia thlt the Unn1med Swamp is c lnsifhd as Cllaa A dri nk ing w1ter by the Stlte RA at 4-5 4- 26 The purpose of the Rhode lahnd water quality at1ndacds set forth in Section 6 of the Rhode I a llnd Water Qu1lity ReQulati ons f o r Weter Poll ution Co ntrol is to bulldefine t he water qullity 90ala o f a water body or portion thereof by des ig na tin9 the use or uses tcLbLmJ of t he water 1nd by t t i ng criteria necessary to protect t he uses Water bulluality Regulations at S 61 (emphasis s upplied) Wa ters are assigned claasea with bulleach clns defined by t he moat sens i tive a nd therefore governin9 use1 wh ich it is ~ to protectbull 14 at S 62 (emphuis supplied) The classification says nothing

AI The site hu no public sewers or other utilities 1nd there is no i nd ication that future service is anticipated See LeBlanc Report at 2

-n = = ca

r

Anna J(nako July 29 199J Page 7

Z Prelibullinuy aquatic atudi indictte that the open water areaa of the UnnaMd Swamp 111y include VIM fhh and other fish

J The a toe king of the Pond incUcatea that the open ereu bullof the aitebull an fished occuionally and the huveated fish an consumed by the locll popuhtion

1 Century to the heuuy froM unidentified bull nearby reaidenta bull an inquhy of the Rhode Iahnd Department of Environmantol Management haa confirmed that the amall man-made Eut Pond hu not been atocked with gamefhh or any other fhh If there In fish in Eut Ponc1 then ia no evidence of dak auocilted with eating them u i ndi cated in the 1993 Ecological Rilk Aueument (bullERA) because aat Pond is not contaminated ERA at 5-8 Indeed the ERA used sediment from the Pond as a baCkJround reference RA at ~-7

2 The incorrect assumption ot the stoc king ot Eaat Pond was the only bull for anuming that fiahin9 occurs i n the Swamp Thus that assumption il invalicL

3 In any event there h no evidence that anyone fishes in the Swamp or that the fish then if there are a ny are large e noug h to eat Indeed there is no evidence of any open water in the Swamp that supports a population of edible fish ~ As the 1985 ROD points out the Swamp is lar9ely inaccessible

~I It appears that the only fish observed in the Swamp were sunfish and yellow perch seined at SW-10 ERA Appendix B at 52 Sunfish are small and the perch is described as very small The Report also states Warm weedy water may explain paucity of fish ld There is no evidence of contamination at SW-10 in any event See ERA Pivure 3-6

)

-n = = ca

Anna Jtnako July 29 un Page I

4 lven if it were uaumed that in9e1tion of fi a h froM the Swamp were reuonably likely the r il k aaaeaament aaaumea contarnnation of fiah tiaaue baaed upon concentrationbull in a few ueu o f the SwaMp where contanlination h the higheat There h no rationd buh for uaing these concentrations rather than an averave value in eatimating potantill tiuue contamination

Finally the Site poa no ecolovicll rhka As the Plan atatea at p ll No obvious symptoms of vegetation or ani1111l atreas were observed on the site or in the larger atudy area The ERA aupportl thil conclusion and states that in moat of the wetland and aquatic areaa where elevated levela of aedirnent andor aurflce water contaminantbull were detected the nora appears diverae and healthy and some wildlife activity wu evident ERA at 2-15 The ERA concluded that the risks to species populationbull in the vici nity of the site an insiQnificant ERA at 6-11 6-16 6-18 6-20 The 198~ ROO also concluded that because of low concentration of contaminantbull in the ponds the ettects on aquatic life in the ponds ia expected to be minima 1 bull lf8~ ROO at 6

2 Contrary To EPA Assertions The Site Presents Np Actual [ut yra Risk Tp Human Hllth

EPA hu made no claim that the overburden and shallow bedrock plumes will mionte further from t he site or that additional surface water bodies will be impacted in the future i The only riak cited by the Plan to juatify the

61 The Remedial Investigation Report concludea to the contrary that the contamination from the overburden and shallow bedrock plumes has reached t he limit of its expansion See RI at 4-l (nor have plume dimensions and locations chan9ed appreciably since (1983] RI at 4-~8 (extent of JOroundwater contami nat ion similar to that observed in past investigations surface water concentrations have decreased There is no evidence that there is a plume movin9 to the north or east but EPA proposes to install sentinel wells to provide further assurance that there will be no impact on residences in t hose areas

-n = = ca

Anna Jtuako July 29 1993 Pa9e

$ U Million remedy is the speculative hypothetiCil rhk that in the future residents 1111y use the C)roundwater from the preaently-i111pacted aquifer o r aurflce water from the Unnamed Swamp for drinkin9 water Plan at 11 As described below EPA hu failed to comply with the NCP and ita own guidance in ita reliance on such a rilk to juatify the propoaed remedy

Grgyndwttlr

Impac ted groundwater will never be used tbaent residential development on the eiQht-1cre dhpoul area or on the rehtively small amount of dry hnd between the diapoul area and t he Swamp Whi h the NCP s upports conservatism in rilk assessment it also requires t hat e xposure acenarioa be realistic This il true apecifica llywith respect to aasumptiona of future residential development and uae The Preamble to the NCP specific8lly states t hat future relidential use s hould not be nsumed where t he facta ahow that the probability o f resident ial development ia small

In general t he baseline riak aasesament will look at a future land use t ha t ia both ~ from land use development patterns and may be associated with the highest (most significant) risk i n o rder to be protective These considerations will lead to the assumption of residential uae as the future land use in many cases Res i dential land use assumptions generally result in the most conservative exposure estimates The assumption of residential land use is not a requirement of t he program but nther is an assumption that may be made bued on conservative but realistic erposures to ensure t hat

-n = = ca

Anna Jruko July n 1993 Q 10

reMdhs that ue ultiMately selected for the tte will be protective An auueptigo gf Cuturt nlidtnthl lind Ull MY not bt iultiChbll if tbt prgbability that tb1 aitt will auppgrt ruidtnthl u in tht future h 1r11ll

Preamble ~~red ReCJ 8666 8710 (19JO) (emphuh added)

PAI Guidance underacorea t he point that t zpoaure uaumptiona must be realistic Ita ~Guidance on Rilk ChiCICteriution for Jhk MaDICJIU a nd AIIIUOCI~ (292) says that e zpoaure aaaeasment s hould focua on ~the real world environmental acenarioa of people who may be ezposed to the a9ent under atudy ~ J4 at 13

Sin~ilerly in ita Risk Aueument Guidance for Superfund Volume I Human Heelth Evaluation Manual Supplement Guidance ~standard Defined Exposure Factorsbull (Interim rind J2~91 at 5) EPA s tates

In determininq the potential for future residential land u the RPM should consider hhtorical land use

~~~~~b~~~~CJ ~o~n~e~~~n~ 1t ~=~~~~~ent

11 EPA hu been crlticiud for making unreasonable assumptions 11 to future residential land use In recent testimony (June 23 1993) on remedy sehction iuues before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials of the Co~m~ittee on Enerqy and Corm~erce of the United States House of Representetives Deputy Administrator Robert M Sunman apparently responding to this criticism acknowledged bullt o practice future land use has often been assumed to be residential In some of these cases the edstinq and prior use of the land was not resident ial Unrulhtic anumgtigns aboyt fytyre land yse cguld significantly increue the cobulltbull gf cleanup withgyt cpDJDensunte benefiU Testimony at 30 (emphasis added) He went on to state that bullThe Aqency recoqnizes that [residential land use] is not a likely cenario for all

(Footnote continues on next page)

-n = = =

Annl ICUikO July 29 1993 Plge 11

The authortti eltbullbliah th1t a ite-apecific evidence Muat be vbullthered 1nd evelu1ted before po u i ble future relidenthl land uae c1n rve u the bnh t o r 1 finding thlt riaka juatily 1 remedy

The Riak AueaaMnt here doea not meet the requirementbull ot the NCP or EPA Guichnce becauae it ldla to uaesa on a lite-apecific buia whether r identhl development of the impacted 1n1 nuonably m1y be ezpected The Risk Aaaeaament contti na bullbull s unrn1ry of potenthl lind uae in t he re1aonably toreaeeable future tor each medii o f concern It the Picillo PICM bull RA at 4-9 Ita entire aummuy tor groundw1ter ia u follows

The Picillo rum study arebull ia c urrently zoned rural resident il l Sued on thil zoning 1nd the observ1tion of several newly built res i dences in the nearby uea it h pouibh that residences will be cons tructed in t he s tudy area It 1 future time Buildinq is ponible on approdmately 512 acres (40) of the 2 square mile at udy area Construction on the remaining 60 of the s tudy area may be reatricted by wetllnd protection reguhtiona The expansion o f residential housing may lead to the uae (u 1 potable weter source) of overburden a nd s h11l ow bedrock ground w1ter from the source and dist1 nt zones ot the contlminated plume 11 well u deep bedrock aquifer Given this

11 (Footnote continued f r om prev ious page)

sites a nd that different land use would result in different eapos ure scenarios as well We are current ly developinq a more definitive policy (to be issued i n October) One appro1ch being considered for t his guida nce is to state that generally the current land use at a site s hould be assumed to be the f uture land use unless there is persuasive i nformati on that shows that current land use is likely to c hange bull Testimony at 32

-n = = ca

r

Anna Juako July 29 un Page 12

aurnpti o n adult and c hild reddenta could b4l bullbullposed to conten~inaUd ground water

The only evidence cited in s upport o f the conclusion that f uture r identhl development il likely il that the 2-aqu tre mile study uea il zoned ruulnaident ial and that severe reddencea have been built in the neuby area There h no eVI luati o n of t he li keli hood of relidenthl development i n the impacted area it lt nd in puticular no evaluation of the suit ability of that uea for reaide ntial development or of t he availabili ty of other property in the vic inity thlt ia more acceuible to public roads nd utiliti and that co ul(l be developed leu e zpensivelyl Neither is there any aueument of lege and business i mpediment a to development Thus t he Ris k Aneument h detective i n this regard 1nd it does not provide 1 bn is tor an EPA conclusion that residential development m1y reasonably be ant icipated

b Syrhct WetJr

The only buis described i n the Rilk Assessment for 111uming thlt the surt1ce w1ter o f the Unn1med Sw1mp will be used for drinking w1ter ia thlt the Unn1med Swamp is c lnsifhd as Cllaa A dri nk ing w1ter by the Stlte RA at 4-5 4- 26 The purpose of the Rhode lahnd water quality at1ndacds set forth in Section 6 of the Rhode I a llnd Water Qu1lity ReQulati ons f o r Weter Poll ution Co ntrol is to bulldefine t he water qullity 90ala o f a water body or portion thereof by des ig na tin9 the use or uses tcLbLmJ of t he water 1nd by t t i ng criteria necessary to protect t he uses Water bulluality Regulations at S 61 (emphasis s upplied) Wa ters are assigned claasea with bulleach clns defined by t he moat sens i tive a nd therefore governin9 use1 wh ich it is ~ to protectbull 14 at S 62 (emphuis supplied) The classification says nothing

AI The site hu no public sewers or other utilities 1nd there is no i nd ication that future service is anticipated See LeBlanc Report at 2

-n = = ca

Anna Jtnako July 29 un Page I

4 lven if it were uaumed that in9e1tion of fi a h froM the Swamp were reuonably likely the r il k aaaeaament aaaumea contarnnation of fiah tiaaue baaed upon concentrationbull in a few ueu o f the SwaMp where contanlination h the higheat There h no rationd buh for uaing these concentrations rather than an averave value in eatimating potantill tiuue contamination

Finally the Site poa no ecolovicll rhka As the Plan atatea at p ll No obvious symptoms of vegetation or ani1111l atreas were observed on the site or in the larger atudy area The ERA aupportl thil conclusion and states that in moat of the wetland and aquatic areaa where elevated levela of aedirnent andor aurflce water contaminantbull were detected the nora appears diverae and healthy and some wildlife activity wu evident ERA at 2-15 The ERA concluded that the risks to species populationbull in the vici nity of the site an insiQnificant ERA at 6-11 6-16 6-18 6-20 The 198~ ROO also concluded that because of low concentration of contaminantbull in the ponds the ettects on aquatic life in the ponds ia expected to be minima 1 bull lf8~ ROO at 6

2 Contrary To EPA Assertions The Site Presents Np Actual [ut yra Risk Tp Human Hllth

EPA hu made no claim that the overburden and shallow bedrock plumes will mionte further from t he site or that additional surface water bodies will be impacted in the future i The only riak cited by the Plan to juatify the

61 The Remedial Investigation Report concludea to the contrary that the contamination from the overburden and shallow bedrock plumes has reached t he limit of its expansion See RI at 4-l (nor have plume dimensions and locations chan9ed appreciably since (1983] RI at 4-~8 (extent of JOroundwater contami nat ion similar to that observed in past investigations surface water concentrations have decreased There is no evidence that there is a plume movin9 to the north or east but EPA proposes to install sentinel wells to provide further assurance that there will be no impact on residences in t hose areas

-n = = ca

Anna Jtuako July 29 1993 Pa9e

$ U Million remedy is the speculative hypothetiCil rhk that in the future residents 1111y use the C)roundwater from the preaently-i111pacted aquifer o r aurflce water from the Unnamed Swamp for drinkin9 water Plan at 11 As described below EPA hu failed to comply with the NCP and ita own guidance in ita reliance on such a rilk to juatify the propoaed remedy

Grgyndwttlr

Impac ted groundwater will never be used tbaent residential development on the eiQht-1cre dhpoul area or on the rehtively small amount of dry hnd between the diapoul area and t he Swamp Whi h the NCP s upports conservatism in rilk assessment it also requires t hat e xposure acenarioa be realistic This il true apecifica llywith respect to aasumptiona of future residential development and uae The Preamble to the NCP specific8lly states t hat future relidential use s hould not be nsumed where t he facta ahow that the probability o f resident ial development ia small

In general t he baseline riak aasesament will look at a future land use t ha t ia both ~ from land use development patterns and may be associated with the highest (most significant) risk i n o rder to be protective These considerations will lead to the assumption of residential uae as the future land use in many cases Res i dential land use assumptions generally result in the most conservative exposure estimates The assumption of residential land use is not a requirement of t he program but nther is an assumption that may be made bued on conservative but realistic erposures to ensure t hat

-n = = ca

Anna Jruko July n 1993 Q 10

reMdhs that ue ultiMately selected for the tte will be protective An auueptigo gf Cuturt nlidtnthl lind Ull MY not bt iultiChbll if tbt prgbability that tb1 aitt will auppgrt ruidtnthl u in tht future h 1r11ll

Preamble ~~red ReCJ 8666 8710 (19JO) (emphuh added)

PAI Guidance underacorea t he point that t zpoaure uaumptiona must be realistic Ita ~Guidance on Rilk ChiCICteriution for Jhk MaDICJIU a nd AIIIUOCI~ (292) says that e zpoaure aaaeasment s hould focua on ~the real world environmental acenarioa of people who may be ezposed to the a9ent under atudy ~ J4 at 13

Sin~ilerly in ita Risk Aueument Guidance for Superfund Volume I Human Heelth Evaluation Manual Supplement Guidance ~standard Defined Exposure Factorsbull (Interim rind J2~91 at 5) EPA s tates

In determininq the potential for future residential land u the RPM should consider hhtorical land use

~~~~~b~~~~CJ ~o~n~e~~~n~ 1t ~=~~~~~ent

11 EPA hu been crlticiud for making unreasonable assumptions 11 to future residential land use In recent testimony (June 23 1993) on remedy sehction iuues before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials of the Co~m~ittee on Enerqy and Corm~erce of the United States House of Representetives Deputy Administrator Robert M Sunman apparently responding to this criticism acknowledged bullt o practice future land use has often been assumed to be residential In some of these cases the edstinq and prior use of the land was not resident ial Unrulhtic anumgtigns aboyt fytyre land yse cguld significantly increue the cobulltbull gf cleanup withgyt cpDJDensunte benefiU Testimony at 30 (emphasis added) He went on to state that bullThe Aqency recoqnizes that [residential land use] is not a likely cenario for all

(Footnote continues on next page)

-n = = =

Annl ICUikO July 29 1993 Plge 11

The authortti eltbullbliah th1t a ite-apecific evidence Muat be vbullthered 1nd evelu1ted before po u i ble future relidenthl land uae c1n rve u the bnh t o r 1 finding thlt riaka juatily 1 remedy

The Riak AueaaMnt here doea not meet the requirementbull ot the NCP or EPA Guichnce becauae it ldla to uaesa on a lite-apecific buia whether r identhl development of the impacted 1n1 nuonably m1y be ezpected The Risk Aaaeaament contti na bullbull s unrn1ry of potenthl lind uae in t he re1aonably toreaeeable future tor each medii o f concern It the Picillo PICM bull RA at 4-9 Ita entire aummuy tor groundw1ter ia u follows

The Picillo rum study arebull ia c urrently zoned rural resident il l Sued on thil zoning 1nd the observ1tion of several newly built res i dences in the nearby uea it h pouibh that residences will be cons tructed in t he s tudy area It 1 future time Buildinq is ponible on approdmately 512 acres (40) of the 2 square mile at udy area Construction on the remaining 60 of the s tudy area may be reatricted by wetllnd protection reguhtiona The expansion o f residential housing may lead to the uae (u 1 potable weter source) of overburden a nd s h11l ow bedrock ground w1ter from the source and dist1 nt zones ot the contlminated plume 11 well u deep bedrock aquifer Given this

11 (Footnote continued f r om prev ious page)

sites a nd that different land use would result in different eapos ure scenarios as well We are current ly developinq a more definitive policy (to be issued i n October) One appro1ch being considered for t his guida nce is to state that generally the current land use at a site s hould be assumed to be the f uture land use unless there is persuasive i nformati on that shows that current land use is likely to c hange bull Testimony at 32

-n = = ca

r

Anna Juako July 29 un Page 12

aurnpti o n adult and c hild reddenta could b4l bullbullposed to conten~inaUd ground water

The only evidence cited in s upport o f the conclusion that f uture r identhl development il likely il that the 2-aqu tre mile study uea il zoned ruulnaident ial and that severe reddencea have been built in the neuby area There h no eVI luati o n of t he li keli hood of relidenthl development i n the impacted area it lt nd in puticular no evaluation of the suit ability of that uea for reaide ntial development or of t he availabili ty of other property in the vic inity thlt ia more acceuible to public roads nd utiliti and that co ul(l be developed leu e zpensivelyl Neither is there any aueument of lege and business i mpediment a to development Thus t he Ris k Aneument h detective i n this regard 1nd it does not provide 1 bn is tor an EPA conclusion that residential development m1y reasonably be ant icipated

b Syrhct WetJr

The only buis described i n the Rilk Assessment for 111uming thlt the surt1ce w1ter o f the Unn1med Sw1mp will be used for drinking w1ter ia thlt the Unn1med Swamp is c lnsifhd as Cllaa A dri nk ing w1ter by the Stlte RA at 4-5 4- 26 The purpose of the Rhode lahnd water quality at1ndacds set forth in Section 6 of the Rhode I a llnd Water Qu1lity ReQulati ons f o r Weter Poll ution Co ntrol is to bulldefine t he water qullity 90ala o f a water body or portion thereof by des ig na tin9 the use or uses tcLbLmJ of t he water 1nd by t t i ng criteria necessary to protect t he uses Water bulluality Regulations at S 61 (emphasis s upplied) Wa ters are assigned claasea with bulleach clns defined by t he moat sens i tive a nd therefore governin9 use1 wh ich it is ~ to protectbull 14 at S 62 (emphuis supplied) The classification says nothing

AI The site hu no public sewers or other utilities 1nd there is no i nd ication that future service is anticipated See LeBlanc Report at 2

-n = = ca

Anna Jtuako July 29 1993 Pa9e

$ U Million remedy is the speculative hypothetiCil rhk that in the future residents 1111y use the C)roundwater from the preaently-i111pacted aquifer o r aurflce water from the Unnamed Swamp for drinkin9 water Plan at 11 As described below EPA hu failed to comply with the NCP and ita own guidance in ita reliance on such a rilk to juatify the propoaed remedy

Grgyndwttlr

Impac ted groundwater will never be used tbaent residential development on the eiQht-1cre dhpoul area or on the rehtively small amount of dry hnd between the diapoul area and t he Swamp Whi h the NCP s upports conservatism in rilk assessment it also requires t hat e xposure acenarioa be realistic This il true apecifica llywith respect to aasumptiona of future residential development and uae The Preamble to the NCP specific8lly states t hat future relidential use s hould not be nsumed where t he facta ahow that the probability o f resident ial development ia small

In general t he baseline riak aasesament will look at a future land use t ha t ia both ~ from land use development patterns and may be associated with the highest (most significant) risk i n o rder to be protective These considerations will lead to the assumption of residential uae as the future land use in many cases Res i dential land use assumptions generally result in the most conservative exposure estimates The assumption of residential land use is not a requirement of t he program but nther is an assumption that may be made bued on conservative but realistic erposures to ensure t hat

-n = = ca

Anna Jruko July n 1993 Q 10

reMdhs that ue ultiMately selected for the tte will be protective An auueptigo gf Cuturt nlidtnthl lind Ull MY not bt iultiChbll if tbt prgbability that tb1 aitt will auppgrt ruidtnthl u in tht future h 1r11ll

Preamble ~~red ReCJ 8666 8710 (19JO) (emphuh added)

PAI Guidance underacorea t he point that t zpoaure uaumptiona must be realistic Ita ~Guidance on Rilk ChiCICteriution for Jhk MaDICJIU a nd AIIIUOCI~ (292) says that e zpoaure aaaeasment s hould focua on ~the real world environmental acenarioa of people who may be ezposed to the a9ent under atudy ~ J4 at 13

Sin~ilerly in ita Risk Aueument Guidance for Superfund Volume I Human Heelth Evaluation Manual Supplement Guidance ~standard Defined Exposure Factorsbull (Interim rind J2~91 at 5) EPA s tates

In determininq the potential for future residential land u the RPM should consider hhtorical land use

~~~~~b~~~~CJ ~o~n~e~~~n~ 1t ~=~~~~~ent

11 EPA hu been crlticiud for making unreasonable assumptions 11 to future residential land use In recent testimony (June 23 1993) on remedy sehction iuues before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials of the Co~m~ittee on Enerqy and Corm~erce of the United States House of Representetives Deputy Administrator Robert M Sunman apparently responding to this criticism acknowledged bullt o practice future land use has often been assumed to be residential In some of these cases the edstinq and prior use of the land was not resident ial Unrulhtic anumgtigns aboyt fytyre land yse cguld significantly increue the cobulltbull gf cleanup withgyt cpDJDensunte benefiU Testimony at 30 (emphasis added) He went on to state that bullThe Aqency recoqnizes that [residential land use] is not a likely cenario for all

(Footnote continues on next page)

-n = = =

Annl ICUikO July 29 1993 Plge 11

The authortti eltbullbliah th1t a ite-apecific evidence Muat be vbullthered 1nd evelu1ted before po u i ble future relidenthl land uae c1n rve u the bnh t o r 1 finding thlt riaka juatily 1 remedy

The Riak AueaaMnt here doea not meet the requirementbull ot the NCP or EPA Guichnce becauae it ldla to uaesa on a lite-apecific buia whether r identhl development of the impacted 1n1 nuonably m1y be ezpected The Risk Aaaeaament contti na bullbull s unrn1ry of potenthl lind uae in t he re1aonably toreaeeable future tor each medii o f concern It the Picillo PICM bull RA at 4-9 Ita entire aummuy tor groundw1ter ia u follows

The Picillo rum study arebull ia c urrently zoned rural resident il l Sued on thil zoning 1nd the observ1tion of several newly built res i dences in the nearby uea it h pouibh that residences will be cons tructed in t he s tudy area It 1 future time Buildinq is ponible on approdmately 512 acres (40) of the 2 square mile at udy area Construction on the remaining 60 of the s tudy area may be reatricted by wetllnd protection reguhtiona The expansion o f residential housing may lead to the uae (u 1 potable weter source) of overburden a nd s h11l ow bedrock ground w1ter from the source and dist1 nt zones ot the contlminated plume 11 well u deep bedrock aquifer Given this

11 (Footnote continued f r om prev ious page)

sites a nd that different land use would result in different eapos ure scenarios as well We are current ly developinq a more definitive policy (to be issued i n October) One appro1ch being considered for t his guida nce is to state that generally the current land use at a site s hould be assumed to be the f uture land use unless there is persuasive i nformati on that shows that current land use is likely to c hange bull Testimony at 32

-n = = ca

r

Anna Juako July 29 un Page 12

aurnpti o n adult and c hild reddenta could b4l bullbullposed to conten~inaUd ground water

The only evidence cited in s upport o f the conclusion that f uture r identhl development il likely il that the 2-aqu tre mile study uea il zoned ruulnaident ial and that severe reddencea have been built in the neuby area There h no eVI luati o n of t he li keli hood of relidenthl development i n the impacted area it lt nd in puticular no evaluation of the suit ability of that uea for reaide ntial development or of t he availabili ty of other property in the vic inity thlt ia more acceuible to public roads nd utiliti and that co ul(l be developed leu e zpensivelyl Neither is there any aueument of lege and business i mpediment a to development Thus t he Ris k Aneument h detective i n this regard 1nd it does not provide 1 bn is tor an EPA conclusion that residential development m1y reasonably be ant icipated

b Syrhct WetJr

The only buis described i n the Rilk Assessment for 111uming thlt the surt1ce w1ter o f the Unn1med Sw1mp will be used for drinking w1ter ia thlt the Unn1med Swamp is c lnsifhd as Cllaa A dri nk ing w1ter by the Stlte RA at 4-5 4- 26 The purpose of the Rhode lahnd water quality at1ndacds set forth in Section 6 of the Rhode I a llnd Water Qu1lity ReQulati ons f o r Weter Poll ution Co ntrol is to bulldefine t he water qullity 90ala o f a water body or portion thereof by des ig na tin9 the use or uses tcLbLmJ of t he water 1nd by t t i ng criteria necessary to protect t he uses Water bulluality Regulations at S 61 (emphasis s upplied) Wa ters are assigned claasea with bulleach clns defined by t he moat sens i tive a nd therefore governin9 use1 wh ich it is ~ to protectbull 14 at S 62 (emphuis supplied) The classification says nothing

AI The site hu no public sewers or other utilities 1nd there is no i nd ication that future service is anticipated See LeBlanc Report at 2

-n = = ca

Anna Jruko July n 1993 Q 10

reMdhs that ue ultiMately selected for the tte will be protective An auueptigo gf Cuturt nlidtnthl lind Ull MY not bt iultiChbll if tbt prgbability that tb1 aitt will auppgrt ruidtnthl u in tht future h 1r11ll

Preamble ~~red ReCJ 8666 8710 (19JO) (emphuh added)

PAI Guidance underacorea t he point that t zpoaure uaumptiona must be realistic Ita ~Guidance on Rilk ChiCICteriution for Jhk MaDICJIU a nd AIIIUOCI~ (292) says that e zpoaure aaaeasment s hould focua on ~the real world environmental acenarioa of people who may be ezposed to the a9ent under atudy ~ J4 at 13

Sin~ilerly in ita Risk Aueument Guidance for Superfund Volume I Human Heelth Evaluation Manual Supplement Guidance ~standard Defined Exposure Factorsbull (Interim rind J2~91 at 5) EPA s tates

In determininq the potential for future residential land u the RPM should consider hhtorical land use

~~~~~b~~~~CJ ~o~n~e~~~n~ 1t ~=~~~~~ent

11 EPA hu been crlticiud for making unreasonable assumptions 11 to future residential land use In recent testimony (June 23 1993) on remedy sehction iuues before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials of the Co~m~ittee on Enerqy and Corm~erce of the United States House of Representetives Deputy Administrator Robert M Sunman apparently responding to this criticism acknowledged bullt o practice future land use has often been assumed to be residential In some of these cases the edstinq and prior use of the land was not resident ial Unrulhtic anumgtigns aboyt fytyre land yse cguld significantly increue the cobulltbull gf cleanup withgyt cpDJDensunte benefiU Testimony at 30 (emphasis added) He went on to state that bullThe Aqency recoqnizes that [residential land use] is not a likely cenario for all

(Footnote continues on next page)

-n = = =

Annl ICUikO July 29 1993 Plge 11

The authortti eltbullbliah th1t a ite-apecific evidence Muat be vbullthered 1nd evelu1ted before po u i ble future relidenthl land uae c1n rve u the bnh t o r 1 finding thlt riaka juatily 1 remedy

The Riak AueaaMnt here doea not meet the requirementbull ot the NCP or EPA Guichnce becauae it ldla to uaesa on a lite-apecific buia whether r identhl development of the impacted 1n1 nuonably m1y be ezpected The Risk Aaaeaament contti na bullbull s unrn1ry of potenthl lind uae in t he re1aonably toreaeeable future tor each medii o f concern It the Picillo PICM bull RA at 4-9 Ita entire aummuy tor groundw1ter ia u follows

The Picillo rum study arebull ia c urrently zoned rural resident il l Sued on thil zoning 1nd the observ1tion of several newly built res i dences in the nearby uea it h pouibh that residences will be cons tructed in t he s tudy area It 1 future time Buildinq is ponible on approdmately 512 acres (40) of the 2 square mile at udy area Construction on the remaining 60 of the s tudy area may be reatricted by wetllnd protection reguhtiona The expansion o f residential housing may lead to the uae (u 1 potable weter source) of overburden a nd s h11l ow bedrock ground w1ter from the source and dist1 nt zones ot the contlminated plume 11 well u deep bedrock aquifer Given this

11 (Footnote continued f r om prev ious page)

sites a nd that different land use would result in different eapos ure scenarios as well We are current ly developinq a more definitive policy (to be issued i n October) One appro1ch being considered for t his guida nce is to state that generally the current land use at a site s hould be assumed to be the f uture land use unless there is persuasive i nformati on that shows that current land use is likely to c hange bull Testimony at 32

-n = = ca

r

Anna Juako July 29 un Page 12

aurnpti o n adult and c hild reddenta could b4l bullbullposed to conten~inaUd ground water

The only evidence cited in s upport o f the conclusion that f uture r identhl development il likely il that the 2-aqu tre mile study uea il zoned ruulnaident ial and that severe reddencea have been built in the neuby area There h no eVI luati o n of t he li keli hood of relidenthl development i n the impacted area it lt nd in puticular no evaluation of the suit ability of that uea for reaide ntial development or of t he availabili ty of other property in the vic inity thlt ia more acceuible to public roads nd utiliti and that co ul(l be developed leu e zpensivelyl Neither is there any aueument of lege and business i mpediment a to development Thus t he Ris k Aneument h detective i n this regard 1nd it does not provide 1 bn is tor an EPA conclusion that residential development m1y reasonably be ant icipated

b Syrhct WetJr

The only buis described i n the Rilk Assessment for 111uming thlt the surt1ce w1ter o f the Unn1med Sw1mp will be used for drinking w1ter ia thlt the Unn1med Swamp is c lnsifhd as Cllaa A dri nk ing w1ter by the Stlte RA at 4-5 4- 26 The purpose of the Rhode lahnd water quality at1ndacds set forth in Section 6 of the Rhode I a llnd Water Qu1lity ReQulati ons f o r Weter Poll ution Co ntrol is to bulldefine t he water qullity 90ala o f a water body or portion thereof by des ig na tin9 the use or uses tcLbLmJ of t he water 1nd by t t i ng criteria necessary to protect t he uses Water bulluality Regulations at S 61 (emphasis s upplied) Wa ters are assigned claasea with bulleach clns defined by t he moat sens i tive a nd therefore governin9 use1 wh ich it is ~ to protectbull 14 at S 62 (emphuis supplied) The classification says nothing

AI The site hu no public sewers or other utilities 1nd there is no i nd ication that future service is anticipated See LeBlanc Report at 2

-n = = ca

Annl ICUikO July 29 1993 Plge 11

The authortti eltbullbliah th1t a ite-apecific evidence Muat be vbullthered 1nd evelu1ted before po u i ble future relidenthl land uae c1n rve u the bnh t o r 1 finding thlt riaka juatily 1 remedy

The Riak AueaaMnt here doea not meet the requirementbull ot the NCP or EPA Guichnce becauae it ldla to uaesa on a lite-apecific buia whether r identhl development of the impacted 1n1 nuonably m1y be ezpected The Risk Aaaeaament contti na bullbull s unrn1ry of potenthl lind uae in t he re1aonably toreaeeable future tor each medii o f concern It the Picillo PICM bull RA at 4-9 Ita entire aummuy tor groundw1ter ia u follows

The Picillo rum study arebull ia c urrently zoned rural resident il l Sued on thil zoning 1nd the observ1tion of several newly built res i dences in the nearby uea it h pouibh that residences will be cons tructed in t he s tudy area It 1 future time Buildinq is ponible on approdmately 512 acres (40) of the 2 square mile at udy area Construction on the remaining 60 of the s tudy area may be reatricted by wetllnd protection reguhtiona The expansion o f residential housing may lead to the uae (u 1 potable weter source) of overburden a nd s h11l ow bedrock ground w1ter from the source and dist1 nt zones ot the contlminated plume 11 well u deep bedrock aquifer Given this

11 (Footnote continued f r om prev ious page)

sites a nd that different land use would result in different eapos ure scenarios as well We are current ly developinq a more definitive policy (to be issued i n October) One appro1ch being considered for t his guida nce is to state that generally the current land use at a site s hould be assumed to be the f uture land use unless there is persuasive i nformati on that shows that current land use is likely to c hange bull Testimony at 32

-n = = ca

r

Anna Juako July 29 un Page 12

aurnpti o n adult and c hild reddenta could b4l bullbullposed to conten~inaUd ground water

The only evidence cited in s upport o f the conclusion that f uture r identhl development il likely il that the 2-aqu tre mile study uea il zoned ruulnaident ial and that severe reddencea have been built in the neuby area There h no eVI luati o n of t he li keli hood of relidenthl development i n the impacted area it lt nd in puticular no evaluation of the suit ability of that uea for reaide ntial development or of t he availabili ty of other property in the vic inity thlt ia more acceuible to public roads nd utiliti and that co ul(l be developed leu e zpensivelyl Neither is there any aueument of lege and business i mpediment a to development Thus t he Ris k Aneument h detective i n this regard 1nd it does not provide 1 bn is tor an EPA conclusion that residential development m1y reasonably be ant icipated

b Syrhct WetJr

The only buis described i n the Rilk Assessment for 111uming thlt the surt1ce w1ter o f the Unn1med Sw1mp will be used for drinking w1ter ia thlt the Unn1med Swamp is c lnsifhd as Cllaa A dri nk ing w1ter by the Stlte RA at 4-5 4- 26 The purpose of the Rhode lahnd water quality at1ndacds set forth in Section 6 of the Rhode I a llnd Water Qu1lity ReQulati ons f o r Weter Poll ution Co ntrol is to bulldefine t he water qullity 90ala o f a water body or portion thereof by des ig na tin9 the use or uses tcLbLmJ of t he water 1nd by t t i ng criteria necessary to protect t he uses Water bulluality Regulations at S 61 (emphasis s upplied) Wa ters are assigned claasea with bulleach clns defined by t he moat sens i tive a nd therefore governin9 use1 wh ich it is ~ to protectbull 14 at S 62 (emphuis supplied) The classification says nothing

AI The site hu no public sewers or other utilities 1nd there is no i nd ication that future service is anticipated See LeBlanc Report at 2

-n = = ca

r

Anna Juako July 29 un Page 12

aurnpti o n adult and c hild reddenta could b4l bullbullposed to conten~inaUd ground water

The only evidence cited in s upport o f the conclusion that f uture r identhl development il likely il that the 2-aqu tre mile study uea il zoned ruulnaident ial and that severe reddencea have been built in the neuby area There h no eVI luati o n of t he li keli hood of relidenthl development i n the impacted area it lt nd in puticular no evaluation of the suit ability of that uea for reaide ntial development or of t he availabili ty of other property in the vic inity thlt ia more acceuible to public roads nd utiliti and that co ul(l be developed leu e zpensivelyl Neither is there any aueument of lege and business i mpediment a to development Thus t he Ris k Aneument h detective i n this regard 1nd it does not provide 1 bn is tor an EPA conclusion that residential development m1y reasonably be ant icipated

b Syrhct WetJr

The only buis described i n the Rilk Assessment for 111uming thlt the surt1ce w1ter o f the Unn1med Sw1mp will be used for drinking w1ter ia thlt the Unn1med Swamp is c lnsifhd as Cllaa A dri nk ing w1ter by the Stlte RA at 4-5 4- 26 The purpose of the Rhode lahnd water quality at1ndacds set forth in Section 6 of the Rhode I a llnd Water Qu1lity ReQulati ons f o r Weter Poll ution Co ntrol is to bulldefine t he water qullity 90ala o f a water body or portion thereof by des ig na tin9 the use or uses tcLbLmJ of t he water 1nd by t t i ng criteria necessary to protect t he uses Water bulluality Regulations at S 61 (emphasis s upplied) Wa ters are assigned claasea with bulleach clns defined by t he moat sens i tive a nd therefore governin9 use1 wh ich it is ~ to protectbull 14 at S 62 (emphuis supplied) The classification says nothing

AI The site hu no public sewers or other utilities 1nd there is no i nd ication that future service is anticipated See LeBlanc Report at 2

-n = = ca

Anna Kruko July 21 1993 roe n

at dl about the likelihood of thh uae occurrino Indeed all wethnda auch aa Unnued Swamp are conaidered Chu A See RA at 4-5

In flct auch a uae ia highly unlikely Aa deacribed above the Swampa are hrgely inacceuibh They contain decaying veoetation that would make the water unpotable without treatment Further the State and federal wetlandbull lawa prohibit dewaterin~~ wetlandl in any event Additionally the Town of Coventry hu advised us that it hu no plan to uae the Swampa u public water supplies

It allo h pertinent that the ndangerment Aueument that preceded the 1985 ROD did not assume that the Swampa would be used for drinking water Indeed the ROO mentioned only Whitford Pond and Gran Pond u surface water bodies that could be used as a drinking water supply and it correctly noted t hat they had no t been impacted 1985 ROO at 5

3 Appropriate Analysis would Have Shown There II Ng Actual rutun Rh k To Human Hoaltb

If EPA had done the site-specific analysis contemplated by the NCP and its own guidance it would have concluded that the probability of residential development of the impacted area was exceedingly small nclosed is a report prepared by Lawrence C LeBlanc a prominent Rhode Island homebuildei a nd developei with 27 years of experience He conc ludes that even if the Site were pdstine it would not be considered for resident ial development by any prudent developer due to its location zoning restrictions i naccessibility the need to obtain permits to cross a major wetlands to reach it terrain prohibitively high development coats and lack of marketability

In particular it s hould be noted that t he only accesa to the Site is via West Log Bridge Road (Piggy Hill Lane is private property) Accesa to the site from West Log Bridge Road can be gained only by crosaing a major wetland In order to build such a crossing which would be considered under Rhode Island law to be a Msubstantial alteration M a developer would need to show that the alteration would not be detrimental to the health and welfare of the CJBneral

-n = = ca

r

Anna Kruko July 29 Utl Page 14

publi c a ahowi no that would ~ utumely difficult if not h~opoaaible LeBlanc Report at 2 Due to the punce o f the wetllnd bullone might spend tena o f thouunda of dolhu in enQineerino l19al co naulti no fees and public hearinoa with a atrono pouibility that the Rhode Iahnd Oprtment of Enviroruaental ManaQement would not approve a major wetlands c rouin9 bull ~

In addition to the vuioua i mpedimenta that would edat even it the lite were never used for wute dilpoaal Mr LaBlanc a report autaa that the property is aimply unmukettble -- thlt bullto conaidar a former hazardous wute aiU for hauling would most likely be viewed by our lendeu and buaineaa aaaocia taa 11 an act of salt-des truct ion bull Lallllnc Report at 3 Mr LeBhnc conc ludaa that middottt wou ld moat likely be imponible to muket thh property for --a r identhl u the Picillo si te ia undevelopable and will nrl8in ao wdl i nto the 21st Century ld n

Thua if EPA were to undertake t he analysis required by = the NCP and uamine the likelihood o f future development o f the Site it would conclude that the possibility of s uch = development ia remote at best Por thia reason the PAs default uaumption that future lind use may be residential ia unwarranted here The Site presentbull no signif ica nt riak to human health or the environment and a CRCLA remedy ia not required

4 The NCPa xpectation RegardinQ Aquifer Restoration Does Not Justify A Remedy In The Abuncl 0( Actual Rhk Tp Human H11lth

The Proposed Plan c ites restoration of contaminated 9roundwater to drinkin9 water standards as a cleanup o bjective The Feuibility Study at 4- 11 refers to the NCP I expressed expectation that contaminated aquifers will be restored to drinkin9 water quality Howeve r this ezpectation does not p rovide a basis fo r a determination that a remedy is necessary As described above the Site presents no present o r future actual risk to human health CRCLA does not permit remediation in the absence of such risk The expectation i n t he NCP refe rs to remediation ~~~~ ~~ ~i~~ieved th r ou9 h the remedy ll a risk has been V

Anrta kraako July 29 Utl ravbull 15

In The Abeence Of Riak No ReMdy Mn 11 ImoleMnted

i Need Tg Establish lilk

Section 104 of C RCLA permitbull PA to conduct removel or remedill actiona or take any other reeponse meuure if it deems them ~necury to protect the public health or welflre or the environment ~ Section 101(24) of CRCLA defi ne bull remedhl actions as actions taken bullto prevent or minimize the nleue of huacdoua aubatlnces 10 that they do not mionte to cauae aubata nt hl danoer to present or future public health or wwlfare or thw e nvironment Conli atent with thia thw MCP at 40 CPR S l004JO(a)(l) atatea that the purposw o f the remedy swlection process ia to implement rwmediea that eliminate rwduce or control rhka to human health and the envi ronrMnt Thua a reaaonable determination of the pnawnce of rhk or danger h a atatutory threshold for a CRCLA remedy SU RA at 1-1 (baseline Human Health Rhk Aueument provides bull bull for takinQ action under Sections 104 andor 106 of CRCLA)

The role of the bueline risk assessment il to determine if such a risk o r da nger exiatsl When it promulc~ated the current NCP PA stated

Aa part of the remedial inveatigation the baseline risk assessment is initiated to determine whether the contaminanta of concern identified at the site pose a current or potential risk to human health and the environment in the absence of any remedial action It provides a basis for determining whether remedial action is necessary and the justification for performinq remeCUal actions

Preamble 55 Fed ReQ at 8709

1 Baseline risk asseumenta were formerly referred to as ~endanljlerment assessments echoin9 the reference to danc~er in the definition of remedial action 5lul 55 Fed Reljl 8666 8709 (l890)

-n = = ca

Anna Jtruko July 29 Utl Page U

In OSWEI Directive 93550middot10 (4n21tl) entitled bullRole of Jueline liak AueasiMint in Superfund leiMidy Selection Decisions bull EPA stated at pp 1middot4

Aa a general policy and in order to operate a unified Superfund program EPA veneully us the results of the baseline risk uaeasment to establish the baaia for takinq a remedial action udng either Section 104 or 106 aut hority Generally where the bueline rilk u ument indicates th1t 1 cumulative lite rilk to an individual using reasonable m1zimu111 expo1ure uaumptions for either current or future land u1e exceeds the to-4 lifetime exceu c1ncer risk end of the rhk unve action under CERCLA ia geneully warunted at the site For sites where the cumulltive site risk to an i ndiv idual based on reasonable m1ximum exposure for both current and future land uae ia less than lo-4 action generally is not warranted but may be warunted if a c hemi cll specific standard that defines accept1ble risk il violatedlC or unless there ue nonc1rcinovenic effects or an adverse environmentll impact that warrants action

111 The Guidance makes clear t hat the violation of a chemicel-specitic standard (ev MCLs) will not suffice absent ezposure It states middotchemicll specific 1t1ndards that define acceptable risk levels (eg nonmiddotzero MCLGa MCLa) aho may be used to determine whether an exposure is uaochted with an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment and whether remedial action under Section 104 or 106 is warranted Guidance at 4 Here the vroundwater exceeds MCLI but because there is no present ezposure or likely future ezpoaure remedial action is not warranted

-a-n = = =

Annl J(usko July 29 1993 bullbull 17

ti fampoectatipna

Ezpectetiona such 11 bullqulfer restoration come into plly only lfter a deter~t~inetion hu been 1111d1 that bull reMdy h epproprhte NCP 40 crR S J004lO(a)(l) which conteins the program expectetions etates

PA hu utabliahed the tollowing provram 9011 expectetione 1nd program menaoement pri nc ip les to ueilt i n the identif ication and imphmentetion o f epproprhte remedies

In this regnd the ezpectltiona ere li ke ARARa lll EPAs Guichnce Role Of The Bueline Rhk Aeeeument ln Superfund Remedy Selection Oech ion1 e tetea

If the bneline rilk aueu ment and the comperhon of ezposure concentrations to c hemicd-apecitic stlnduda i ndicetea thet there ia no un1ccepteble risk to human he8lth or the environment and that no remedial action ill wananted then the CERCLA Section 121 clnup atanduds for selection of a Superfund remedy includin9 the requirement to meet applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement a (ARARII) are not triqqered CERCLA 11ection 12l(a) requires only that those remedial actions that are determined to be necesury bull under aec tion 104 or

106 be se lected in acco rdance with ampaction 121

14 at 6

The NCP Preamble specifically links t he proqram e~pectations to the preferences and mandates eJpreased in Section 121 of CERCLA and says that t hey are intended to 9uide i n developinq c leanup options

ll The PS treats t he e~pectation as an ARAR See FS at 4-11

-n = =ca

J

r

Anna Jraako July 29 1993 PICJI 11

AI dlacuned in Section 3 above a fair and nuonable rhk uaeaamen t would have concluded thet t here 1r1 no actual current or future riaka uaochted with the Site AcconHn~tly the NCP eapectation concern in9 groundwa ter reatoution ruy not aerve 11 t he baah tor requiring 1 remedy

5 The Rhode I a lind Water Quality Standuds Do Not Justify A Remedy In The AhiiDCI Of Actual Bilk Tg HUmiD Hultb

Another apparent baaia for the Phna concludon that 1 remedy is neceuery at the Site h that the Shte of Rhode Ialand hu clluUied the vroundwater and aurtace water at the Site 11 water that a hould be of drinking water quality lll However t he State of Rhode Iallnd a dechion to clluify the waten at iuue u potentid drinkinCJ water sources ia relevant under the NCP if at all WllY in the determination of the proper c leanup leveh to be achi eved Thia antyaia is not undertaken unti 1 a remedy h deemed to be necessary as a res u lt o f the rilllks posed by the site The NCP does not authorize EPA to consider the sta ndards when determining whether the site meets the threshold teat for whether a remedy is req uired

The Preambh to the NCP seta forth the role that both federal and ataU water clauification guidelines should play i n remedy selection Firat t he Preamble states that EPA a Gro und - Water Protection Strategy is used as guidance bullw hen determining the appropriate remediation for contami nated ground water at CE RCLA sitesbull and that the Strategy is used to help decide t he Ieyel of remediation that is appropriate for that ground water bull Preamble 55 Ped Reg at 8133 (emphasis supplied) The Preamble

ll Under state regulations the groundwater at the Site is classiHed u Class GA and the surface waters are classified aa Class A RA at 4-4 4-5 Class GA includea bullground water sources desi9 nated to be suitable for public o r private drinking water use without treatment Rhode Island Rules and Regulat ions for Groundwater Quality at S 90l(b) 5JJIIUo RA at 4-4 Class A s urface watera include a 11 wetlands RA at 4-5

-a-n = = ca

Anna Jtruko July Z9 193 Pave U

conaiatently emphuhes that it il the lAYal of clunup which ia determined in put by the reference to the guidelines ld (vuidelinea are uaed by the Superfund progUII u 9uidance to help make dechions on the lAxaLQf ~ neceary for vroundwater at Superfund aiUa) (at every site PA muat decide the appropriate ~ nmedhtign ) (emphuh supplied) SAA amplG Guidelines for Ground- Wate r Chuification under the PA Ground-Water Protection Strategybull Pinal Oratt (December 1986) et ii (Ground-water cllaa will be a factor in deciding the ~~d~~-r~Hctipn or remediation the r11source will be

SUU cluaitications are treated the ume u federal guidelinea To the degree that the a Ute o r locll governmentl have clusified their ground water EPA will C conlider t hese classifications and their applicability tQ the nlection gf an apprgprhte remedy bull Preamble 55 Fed shyn ReCJ at 8733 Thus the existence of state clusificationa for 9round water cannot under the HCP affect the EPAs = determination 11 to whether CERCLA authorizes a remedy at a = particular site This must be done based on site risk 1nd u set fo rth above the Site at issue does not present 1 risk th1t would justify a remedy under CERCLA

Even if it were proper to consider t he 1pplicability of 9round water classification standards at this staC)e the Preamble to the NCP makes clear that such c~uidelines whether atate or fedenl are guidance only 1nd not requirerMnts S Preamble 55 Fed Re9 at 8733 (Ground- Water Protection Strategy used as guidance) at 8734 (u a framework for Superfund ground-water response actiona bull bullto hllR llIHidl t he level of remediation and bullu guidance tg help make dechions on the l eve l of cleanup neceuary bull) SU llJg_

ll In content t he section of the HCP Preamble that discusses baseline risk assessments provides that risk is uaed to determine lihllthli the contaminants of concern identified at the site pose a current or potential risk to human health and the environment in the absence of any remedial action and ttlutthet remedial action is neceuarybull Preamble 55 Fed Reg at 8709

J I

r

Anna Kruko July 29 Utl Page 14

publi c a ahowi no that would ~ utumely difficult if not h~opoaaible LeBlanc Report at 2 Due to the punce o f the wetllnd bullone might spend tena o f thouunda of dolhu in enQineerino l19al co naulti no fees and public hearinoa with a atrono pouibility that the Rhode Iahnd Oprtment of Enviroruaental ManaQement would not approve a major wetlands c rouin9 bull ~

In addition to the vuioua i mpedimenta that would edat even it the lite were never used for wute dilpoaal Mr LaBlanc a report autaa that the property is aimply unmukettble -- thlt bullto conaidar a former hazardous wute aiU for hauling would most likely be viewed by our lendeu and buaineaa aaaocia taa 11 an act of salt-des truct ion bull Lallllnc Report at 3 Mr LeBhnc conc ludaa that middottt wou ld moat likely be imponible to muket thh property for --a r identhl u the Picillo si te ia undevelopable and will nrl8in ao wdl i nto the 21st Century ld n

Thua if EPA were to undertake t he analysis required by = the NCP and uamine the likelihood o f future development o f the Site it would conclude that the possibility of s uch = development ia remote at best Por thia reason the PAs default uaumption that future lind use may be residential ia unwarranted here The Site presentbull no signif ica nt riak to human health or the environment and a CRCLA remedy ia not required

4 The NCPa xpectation RegardinQ Aquifer Restoration Does Not Justify A Remedy In The Abuncl 0( Actual Rhk Tp Human H11lth

The Proposed Plan c ites restoration of contaminated 9roundwater to drinkin9 water standards as a cleanup o bjective The Feuibility Study at 4- 11 refers to the NCP I expressed expectation that contaminated aquifers will be restored to drinkin9 water quality Howeve r this ezpectation does not p rovide a basis fo r a determination that a remedy is necessary As described above the Site presents no present o r future actual risk to human health CRCLA does not permit remediation in the absence of such risk The expectation i n t he NCP refe rs to remediation ~~~~ ~~ ~i~~ieved th r ou9 h the remedy ll a risk has been V

Anrta kraako July 29 Utl ravbull 15

In The Abeence Of Riak No ReMdy Mn 11 ImoleMnted

i Need Tg Establish lilk

Section 104 of C RCLA permitbull PA to conduct removel or remedill actiona or take any other reeponse meuure if it deems them ~necury to protect the public health or welflre or the environment ~ Section 101(24) of CRCLA defi ne bull remedhl actions as actions taken bullto prevent or minimize the nleue of huacdoua aubatlnces 10 that they do not mionte to cauae aubata nt hl danoer to present or future public health or wwlfare or thw e nvironment Conli atent with thia thw MCP at 40 CPR S l004JO(a)(l) atatea that the purposw o f the remedy swlection process ia to implement rwmediea that eliminate rwduce or control rhka to human health and the envi ronrMnt Thua a reaaonable determination of the pnawnce of rhk or danger h a atatutory threshold for a CRCLA remedy SU RA at 1-1 (baseline Human Health Rhk Aueument provides bull bull for takinQ action under Sections 104 andor 106 of CRCLA)

The role of the bueline risk assessment il to determine if such a risk o r da nger exiatsl When it promulc~ated the current NCP PA stated

Aa part of the remedial inveatigation the baseline risk assessment is initiated to determine whether the contaminanta of concern identified at the site pose a current or potential risk to human health and the environment in the absence of any remedial action It provides a basis for determining whether remedial action is necessary and the justification for performinq remeCUal actions

Preamble 55 Fed ReQ at 8709

1 Baseline risk asseumenta were formerly referred to as ~endanljlerment assessments echoin9 the reference to danc~er in the definition of remedial action 5lul 55 Fed Reljl 8666 8709 (l890)

-n = = ca

Anna Jtruko July 29 Utl Page U

In OSWEI Directive 93550middot10 (4n21tl) entitled bullRole of Jueline liak AueasiMint in Superfund leiMidy Selection Decisions bull EPA stated at pp 1middot4

Aa a general policy and in order to operate a unified Superfund program EPA veneully us the results of the baseline risk uaeasment to establish the baaia for takinq a remedial action udng either Section 104 or 106 aut hority Generally where the bueline rilk u ument indicates th1t 1 cumulative lite rilk to an individual using reasonable m1zimu111 expo1ure uaumptions for either current or future land u1e exceeds the to-4 lifetime exceu c1ncer risk end of the rhk unve action under CERCLA ia geneully warunted at the site For sites where the cumulltive site risk to an i ndiv idual based on reasonable m1ximum exposure for both current and future land uae ia less than lo-4 action generally is not warranted but may be warunted if a c hemi cll specific standard that defines accept1ble risk il violatedlC or unless there ue nonc1rcinovenic effects or an adverse environmentll impact that warrants action

111 The Guidance makes clear t hat the violation of a chemicel-specitic standard (ev MCLs) will not suffice absent ezposure It states middotchemicll specific 1t1ndards that define acceptable risk levels (eg nonmiddotzero MCLGa MCLa) aho may be used to determine whether an exposure is uaochted with an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment and whether remedial action under Section 104 or 106 is warranted Guidance at 4 Here the vroundwater exceeds MCLI but because there is no present ezposure or likely future ezpoaure remedial action is not warranted

-a-n = = =

Annl J(usko July 29 1993 bullbull 17

ti fampoectatipna

Ezpectetiona such 11 bullqulfer restoration come into plly only lfter a deter~t~inetion hu been 1111d1 that bull reMdy h epproprhte NCP 40 crR S J004lO(a)(l) which conteins the program expectetions etates

PA hu utabliahed the tollowing provram 9011 expectetione 1nd program menaoement pri nc ip les to ueilt i n the identif ication and imphmentetion o f epproprhte remedies

In this regnd the ezpectltiona ere li ke ARARa lll EPAs Guichnce Role Of The Bueline Rhk Aeeeument ln Superfund Remedy Selection Oech ion1 e tetea

If the bneline rilk aueu ment and the comperhon of ezposure concentrations to c hemicd-apecitic stlnduda i ndicetea thet there ia no un1ccepteble risk to human he8lth or the environment and that no remedial action ill wananted then the CERCLA Section 121 clnup atanduds for selection of a Superfund remedy includin9 the requirement to meet applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement a (ARARII) are not triqqered CERCLA 11ection 12l(a) requires only that those remedial actions that are determined to be necesury bull under aec tion 104 or

106 be se lected in acco rdance with ampaction 121

14 at 6

The NCP Preamble specifically links t he proqram e~pectations to the preferences and mandates eJpreased in Section 121 of CERCLA and says that t hey are intended to 9uide i n developinq c leanup options

ll The PS treats t he e~pectation as an ARAR See FS at 4-11

-n = =ca

J

r

Anna Jraako July 29 1993 PICJI 11

AI dlacuned in Section 3 above a fair and nuonable rhk uaeaamen t would have concluded thet t here 1r1 no actual current or future riaka uaochted with the Site AcconHn~tly the NCP eapectation concern in9 groundwa ter reatoution ruy not aerve 11 t he baah tor requiring 1 remedy

5 The Rhode I a lind Water Quality Standuds Do Not Justify A Remedy In The AhiiDCI Of Actual Bilk Tg HUmiD Hultb

Another apparent baaia for the Phna concludon that 1 remedy is neceuery at the Site h that the Shte of Rhode Ialand hu clluUied the vroundwater and aurtace water at the Site 11 water that a hould be of drinking water quality lll However t he State of Rhode Iallnd a dechion to clluify the waten at iuue u potentid drinkinCJ water sources ia relevant under the NCP if at all WllY in the determination of the proper c leanup leveh to be achi eved Thia antyaia is not undertaken unti 1 a remedy h deemed to be necessary as a res u lt o f the rilllks posed by the site The NCP does not authorize EPA to consider the sta ndards when determining whether the site meets the threshold teat for whether a remedy is req uired

The Preambh to the NCP seta forth the role that both federal and ataU water clauification guidelines should play i n remedy selection Firat t he Preamble states that EPA a Gro und - Water Protection Strategy is used as guidance bullw hen determining the appropriate remediation for contami nated ground water at CE RCLA sitesbull and that the Strategy is used to help decide t he Ieyel of remediation that is appropriate for that ground water bull Preamble 55 Ped Reg at 8133 (emphasis supplied) The Preamble

ll Under state regulations the groundwater at the Site is classiHed u Class GA and the surface waters are classified aa Class A RA at 4-4 4-5 Class GA includea bullground water sources desi9 nated to be suitable for public o r private drinking water use without treatment Rhode Island Rules and Regulat ions for Groundwater Quality at S 90l(b) 5JJIIUo RA at 4-4 Class A s urface watera include a 11 wetlands RA at 4-5

-a-n = = ca

Anna Jtruko July Z9 193 Pave U

conaiatently emphuhes that it il the lAYal of clunup which ia determined in put by the reference to the guidelines ld (vuidelinea are uaed by the Superfund progUII u 9uidance to help make dechions on the lAxaLQf ~ neceary for vroundwater at Superfund aiUa) (at every site PA muat decide the appropriate ~ nmedhtign ) (emphuh supplied) SAA amplG Guidelines for Ground- Wate r Chuification under the PA Ground-Water Protection Strategybull Pinal Oratt (December 1986) et ii (Ground-water cllaa will be a factor in deciding the ~~d~~-r~Hctipn or remediation the r11source will be

SUU cluaitications are treated the ume u federal guidelinea To the degree that the a Ute o r locll governmentl have clusified their ground water EPA will C conlider t hese classifications and their applicability tQ the nlection gf an apprgprhte remedy bull Preamble 55 Fed shyn ReCJ at 8733 Thus the existence of state clusificationa for 9round water cannot under the HCP affect the EPAs = determination 11 to whether CERCLA authorizes a remedy at a = particular site This must be done based on site risk 1nd u set fo rth above the Site at issue does not present 1 risk th1t would justify a remedy under CERCLA

Even if it were proper to consider t he 1pplicability of 9round water classification standards at this staC)e the Preamble to the NCP makes clear that such c~uidelines whether atate or fedenl are guidance only 1nd not requirerMnts S Preamble 55 Fed Re9 at 8733 (Ground- Water Protection Strategy used as guidance) at 8734 (u a framework for Superfund ground-water response actiona bull bullto hllR llIHidl t he level of remediation and bullu guidance tg help make dechions on the l eve l of cleanup neceuary bull) SU llJg_

ll In content t he section of the HCP Preamble that discusses baseline risk assessments provides that risk is uaed to determine lihllthli the contaminants of concern identified at the site pose a current or potential risk to human health and the environment in the absence of any remedial action and ttlutthet remedial action is neceuarybull Preamble 55 Fed Reg at 8709

J I

Anrta kraako July 29 Utl ravbull 15

In The Abeence Of Riak No ReMdy Mn 11 ImoleMnted

i Need Tg Establish lilk

Section 104 of C RCLA permitbull PA to conduct removel or remedill actiona or take any other reeponse meuure if it deems them ~necury to protect the public health or welflre or the environment ~ Section 101(24) of CRCLA defi ne bull remedhl actions as actions taken bullto prevent or minimize the nleue of huacdoua aubatlnces 10 that they do not mionte to cauae aubata nt hl danoer to present or future public health or wwlfare or thw e nvironment Conli atent with thia thw MCP at 40 CPR S l004JO(a)(l) atatea that the purposw o f the remedy swlection process ia to implement rwmediea that eliminate rwduce or control rhka to human health and the envi ronrMnt Thua a reaaonable determination of the pnawnce of rhk or danger h a atatutory threshold for a CRCLA remedy SU RA at 1-1 (baseline Human Health Rhk Aueument provides bull bull for takinQ action under Sections 104 andor 106 of CRCLA)

The role of the bueline risk assessment il to determine if such a risk o r da nger exiatsl When it promulc~ated the current NCP PA stated

Aa part of the remedial inveatigation the baseline risk assessment is initiated to determine whether the contaminanta of concern identified at the site pose a current or potential risk to human health and the environment in the absence of any remedial action It provides a basis for determining whether remedial action is necessary and the justification for performinq remeCUal actions

Preamble 55 Fed ReQ at 8709

1 Baseline risk asseumenta were formerly referred to as ~endanljlerment assessments echoin9 the reference to danc~er in the definition of remedial action 5lul 55 Fed Reljl 8666 8709 (l890)

-n = = ca

Anna Jtruko July 29 Utl Page U

In OSWEI Directive 93550middot10 (4n21tl) entitled bullRole of Jueline liak AueasiMint in Superfund leiMidy Selection Decisions bull EPA stated at pp 1middot4

Aa a general policy and in order to operate a unified Superfund program EPA veneully us the results of the baseline risk uaeasment to establish the baaia for takinq a remedial action udng either Section 104 or 106 aut hority Generally where the bueline rilk u ument indicates th1t 1 cumulative lite rilk to an individual using reasonable m1zimu111 expo1ure uaumptions for either current or future land u1e exceeds the to-4 lifetime exceu c1ncer risk end of the rhk unve action under CERCLA ia geneully warunted at the site For sites where the cumulltive site risk to an i ndiv idual based on reasonable m1ximum exposure for both current and future land uae ia less than lo-4 action generally is not warranted but may be warunted if a c hemi cll specific standard that defines accept1ble risk il violatedlC or unless there ue nonc1rcinovenic effects or an adverse environmentll impact that warrants action

111 The Guidance makes clear t hat the violation of a chemicel-specitic standard (ev MCLs) will not suffice absent ezposure It states middotchemicll specific 1t1ndards that define acceptable risk levels (eg nonmiddotzero MCLGa MCLa) aho may be used to determine whether an exposure is uaochted with an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment and whether remedial action under Section 104 or 106 is warranted Guidance at 4 Here the vroundwater exceeds MCLI but because there is no present ezposure or likely future ezpoaure remedial action is not warranted

-a-n = = =

Annl J(usko July 29 1993 bullbull 17

ti fampoectatipna

Ezpectetiona such 11 bullqulfer restoration come into plly only lfter a deter~t~inetion hu been 1111d1 that bull reMdy h epproprhte NCP 40 crR S J004lO(a)(l) which conteins the program expectetions etates

PA hu utabliahed the tollowing provram 9011 expectetione 1nd program menaoement pri nc ip les to ueilt i n the identif ication and imphmentetion o f epproprhte remedies

In this regnd the ezpectltiona ere li ke ARARa lll EPAs Guichnce Role Of The Bueline Rhk Aeeeument ln Superfund Remedy Selection Oech ion1 e tetea

If the bneline rilk aueu ment and the comperhon of ezposure concentrations to c hemicd-apecitic stlnduda i ndicetea thet there ia no un1ccepteble risk to human he8lth or the environment and that no remedial action ill wananted then the CERCLA Section 121 clnup atanduds for selection of a Superfund remedy includin9 the requirement to meet applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement a (ARARII) are not triqqered CERCLA 11ection 12l(a) requires only that those remedial actions that are determined to be necesury bull under aec tion 104 or

106 be se lected in acco rdance with ampaction 121

14 at 6

The NCP Preamble specifically links t he proqram e~pectations to the preferences and mandates eJpreased in Section 121 of CERCLA and says that t hey are intended to 9uide i n developinq c leanup options

ll The PS treats t he e~pectation as an ARAR See FS at 4-11

-n = =ca

J

r

Anna Jraako July 29 1993 PICJI 11

AI dlacuned in Section 3 above a fair and nuonable rhk uaeaamen t would have concluded thet t here 1r1 no actual current or future riaka uaochted with the Site AcconHn~tly the NCP eapectation concern in9 groundwa ter reatoution ruy not aerve 11 t he baah tor requiring 1 remedy

5 The Rhode I a lind Water Quality Standuds Do Not Justify A Remedy In The AhiiDCI Of Actual Bilk Tg HUmiD Hultb

Another apparent baaia for the Phna concludon that 1 remedy is neceuery at the Site h that the Shte of Rhode Ialand hu clluUied the vroundwater and aurtace water at the Site 11 water that a hould be of drinking water quality lll However t he State of Rhode Iallnd a dechion to clluify the waten at iuue u potentid drinkinCJ water sources ia relevant under the NCP if at all WllY in the determination of the proper c leanup leveh to be achi eved Thia antyaia is not undertaken unti 1 a remedy h deemed to be necessary as a res u lt o f the rilllks posed by the site The NCP does not authorize EPA to consider the sta ndards when determining whether the site meets the threshold teat for whether a remedy is req uired

The Preambh to the NCP seta forth the role that both federal and ataU water clauification guidelines should play i n remedy selection Firat t he Preamble states that EPA a Gro und - Water Protection Strategy is used as guidance bullw hen determining the appropriate remediation for contami nated ground water at CE RCLA sitesbull and that the Strategy is used to help decide t he Ieyel of remediation that is appropriate for that ground water bull Preamble 55 Ped Reg at 8133 (emphasis supplied) The Preamble

ll Under state regulations the groundwater at the Site is classiHed u Class GA and the surface waters are classified aa Class A RA at 4-4 4-5 Class GA includea bullground water sources desi9 nated to be suitable for public o r private drinking water use without treatment Rhode Island Rules and Regulat ions for Groundwater Quality at S 90l(b) 5JJIIUo RA at 4-4 Class A s urface watera include a 11 wetlands RA at 4-5

-a-n = = ca

Anna Jtruko July Z9 193 Pave U

conaiatently emphuhes that it il the lAYal of clunup which ia determined in put by the reference to the guidelines ld (vuidelinea are uaed by the Superfund progUII u 9uidance to help make dechions on the lAxaLQf ~ neceary for vroundwater at Superfund aiUa) (at every site PA muat decide the appropriate ~ nmedhtign ) (emphuh supplied) SAA amplG Guidelines for Ground- Wate r Chuification under the PA Ground-Water Protection Strategybull Pinal Oratt (December 1986) et ii (Ground-water cllaa will be a factor in deciding the ~~d~~-r~Hctipn or remediation the r11source will be

SUU cluaitications are treated the ume u federal guidelinea To the degree that the a Ute o r locll governmentl have clusified their ground water EPA will C conlider t hese classifications and their applicability tQ the nlection gf an apprgprhte remedy bull Preamble 55 Fed shyn ReCJ at 8733 Thus the existence of state clusificationa for 9round water cannot under the HCP affect the EPAs = determination 11 to whether CERCLA authorizes a remedy at a = particular site This must be done based on site risk 1nd u set fo rth above the Site at issue does not present 1 risk th1t would justify a remedy under CERCLA

Even if it were proper to consider t he 1pplicability of 9round water classification standards at this staC)e the Preamble to the NCP makes clear that such c~uidelines whether atate or fedenl are guidance only 1nd not requirerMnts S Preamble 55 Fed Re9 at 8733 (Ground- Water Protection Strategy used as guidance) at 8734 (u a framework for Superfund ground-water response actiona bull bullto hllR llIHidl t he level of remediation and bullu guidance tg help make dechions on the l eve l of cleanup neceuary bull) SU llJg_

ll In content t he section of the HCP Preamble that discusses baseline risk assessments provides that risk is uaed to determine lihllthli the contaminants of concern identified at the site pose a current or potential risk to human health and the environment in the absence of any remedial action and ttlutthet remedial action is neceuarybull Preamble 55 Fed Reg at 8709

J I

Anna Jtruko July 29 Utl Page U

In OSWEI Directive 93550middot10 (4n21tl) entitled bullRole of Jueline liak AueasiMint in Superfund leiMidy Selection Decisions bull EPA stated at pp 1middot4

Aa a general policy and in order to operate a unified Superfund program EPA veneully us the results of the baseline risk uaeasment to establish the baaia for takinq a remedial action udng either Section 104 or 106 aut hority Generally where the bueline rilk u ument indicates th1t 1 cumulative lite rilk to an individual using reasonable m1zimu111 expo1ure uaumptions for either current or future land u1e exceeds the to-4 lifetime exceu c1ncer risk end of the rhk unve action under CERCLA ia geneully warunted at the site For sites where the cumulltive site risk to an i ndiv idual based on reasonable m1ximum exposure for both current and future land uae ia less than lo-4 action generally is not warranted but may be warunted if a c hemi cll specific standard that defines accept1ble risk il violatedlC or unless there ue nonc1rcinovenic effects or an adverse environmentll impact that warrants action

111 The Guidance makes clear t hat the violation of a chemicel-specitic standard (ev MCLs) will not suffice absent ezposure It states middotchemicll specific 1t1ndards that define acceptable risk levels (eg nonmiddotzero MCLGa MCLa) aho may be used to determine whether an exposure is uaochted with an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment and whether remedial action under Section 104 or 106 is warranted Guidance at 4 Here the vroundwater exceeds MCLI but because there is no present ezposure or likely future ezpoaure remedial action is not warranted

-a-n = = =

Annl J(usko July 29 1993 bullbull 17

ti fampoectatipna

Ezpectetiona such 11 bullqulfer restoration come into plly only lfter a deter~t~inetion hu been 1111d1 that bull reMdy h epproprhte NCP 40 crR S J004lO(a)(l) which conteins the program expectetions etates

PA hu utabliahed the tollowing provram 9011 expectetione 1nd program menaoement pri nc ip les to ueilt i n the identif ication and imphmentetion o f epproprhte remedies

In this regnd the ezpectltiona ere li ke ARARa lll EPAs Guichnce Role Of The Bueline Rhk Aeeeument ln Superfund Remedy Selection Oech ion1 e tetea

If the bneline rilk aueu ment and the comperhon of ezposure concentrations to c hemicd-apecitic stlnduda i ndicetea thet there ia no un1ccepteble risk to human he8lth or the environment and that no remedial action ill wananted then the CERCLA Section 121 clnup atanduds for selection of a Superfund remedy includin9 the requirement to meet applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement a (ARARII) are not triqqered CERCLA 11ection 12l(a) requires only that those remedial actions that are determined to be necesury bull under aec tion 104 or

106 be se lected in acco rdance with ampaction 121

14 at 6

The NCP Preamble specifically links t he proqram e~pectations to the preferences and mandates eJpreased in Section 121 of CERCLA and says that t hey are intended to 9uide i n developinq c leanup options

ll The PS treats t he e~pectation as an ARAR See FS at 4-11

-n = =ca

J

r

Anna Jraako July 29 1993 PICJI 11

AI dlacuned in Section 3 above a fair and nuonable rhk uaeaamen t would have concluded thet t here 1r1 no actual current or future riaka uaochted with the Site AcconHn~tly the NCP eapectation concern in9 groundwa ter reatoution ruy not aerve 11 t he baah tor requiring 1 remedy

5 The Rhode I a lind Water Quality Standuds Do Not Justify A Remedy In The AhiiDCI Of Actual Bilk Tg HUmiD Hultb

Another apparent baaia for the Phna concludon that 1 remedy is neceuery at the Site h that the Shte of Rhode Ialand hu clluUied the vroundwater and aurtace water at the Site 11 water that a hould be of drinking water quality lll However t he State of Rhode Iallnd a dechion to clluify the waten at iuue u potentid drinkinCJ water sources ia relevant under the NCP if at all WllY in the determination of the proper c leanup leveh to be achi eved Thia antyaia is not undertaken unti 1 a remedy h deemed to be necessary as a res u lt o f the rilllks posed by the site The NCP does not authorize EPA to consider the sta ndards when determining whether the site meets the threshold teat for whether a remedy is req uired

The Preambh to the NCP seta forth the role that both federal and ataU water clauification guidelines should play i n remedy selection Firat t he Preamble states that EPA a Gro und - Water Protection Strategy is used as guidance bullw hen determining the appropriate remediation for contami nated ground water at CE RCLA sitesbull and that the Strategy is used to help decide t he Ieyel of remediation that is appropriate for that ground water bull Preamble 55 Ped Reg at 8133 (emphasis supplied) The Preamble

ll Under state regulations the groundwater at the Site is classiHed u Class GA and the surface waters are classified aa Class A RA at 4-4 4-5 Class GA includea bullground water sources desi9 nated to be suitable for public o r private drinking water use without treatment Rhode Island Rules and Regulat ions for Groundwater Quality at S 90l(b) 5JJIIUo RA at 4-4 Class A s urface watera include a 11 wetlands RA at 4-5

-a-n = = ca

Anna Jtruko July Z9 193 Pave U

conaiatently emphuhes that it il the lAYal of clunup which ia determined in put by the reference to the guidelines ld (vuidelinea are uaed by the Superfund progUII u 9uidance to help make dechions on the lAxaLQf ~ neceary for vroundwater at Superfund aiUa) (at every site PA muat decide the appropriate ~ nmedhtign ) (emphuh supplied) SAA amplG Guidelines for Ground- Wate r Chuification under the PA Ground-Water Protection Strategybull Pinal Oratt (December 1986) et ii (Ground-water cllaa will be a factor in deciding the ~~d~~-r~Hctipn or remediation the r11source will be

SUU cluaitications are treated the ume u federal guidelinea To the degree that the a Ute o r locll governmentl have clusified their ground water EPA will C conlider t hese classifications and their applicability tQ the nlection gf an apprgprhte remedy bull Preamble 55 Fed shyn ReCJ at 8733 Thus the existence of state clusificationa for 9round water cannot under the HCP affect the EPAs = determination 11 to whether CERCLA authorizes a remedy at a = particular site This must be done based on site risk 1nd u set fo rth above the Site at issue does not present 1 risk th1t would justify a remedy under CERCLA

Even if it were proper to consider t he 1pplicability of 9round water classification standards at this staC)e the Preamble to the NCP makes clear that such c~uidelines whether atate or fedenl are guidance only 1nd not requirerMnts S Preamble 55 Fed Re9 at 8733 (Ground- Water Protection Strategy used as guidance) at 8734 (u a framework for Superfund ground-water response actiona bull bullto hllR llIHidl t he level of remediation and bullu guidance tg help make dechions on the l eve l of cleanup neceuary bull) SU llJg_

ll In content t he section of the HCP Preamble that discusses baseline risk assessments provides that risk is uaed to determine lihllthli the contaminants of concern identified at the site pose a current or potential risk to human health and the environment in the absence of any remedial action and ttlutthet remedial action is neceuarybull Preamble 55 Fed Reg at 8709

J I

Annl J(usko July 29 1993 bullbull 17

ti fampoectatipna

Ezpectetiona such 11 bullqulfer restoration come into plly only lfter a deter~t~inetion hu been 1111d1 that bull reMdy h epproprhte NCP 40 crR S J004lO(a)(l) which conteins the program expectetions etates

PA hu utabliahed the tollowing provram 9011 expectetione 1nd program menaoement pri nc ip les to ueilt i n the identif ication and imphmentetion o f epproprhte remedies

In this regnd the ezpectltiona ere li ke ARARa lll EPAs Guichnce Role Of The Bueline Rhk Aeeeument ln Superfund Remedy Selection Oech ion1 e tetea

If the bneline rilk aueu ment and the comperhon of ezposure concentrations to c hemicd-apecitic stlnduda i ndicetea thet there ia no un1ccepteble risk to human he8lth or the environment and that no remedial action ill wananted then the CERCLA Section 121 clnup atanduds for selection of a Superfund remedy includin9 the requirement to meet applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement a (ARARII) are not triqqered CERCLA 11ection 12l(a) requires only that those remedial actions that are determined to be necesury bull under aec tion 104 or

106 be se lected in acco rdance with ampaction 121

14 at 6

The NCP Preamble specifically links t he proqram e~pectations to the preferences and mandates eJpreased in Section 121 of CERCLA and says that t hey are intended to 9uide i n developinq c leanup options

ll The PS treats t he e~pectation as an ARAR See FS at 4-11

-n = =ca

J

r

Anna Jraako July 29 1993 PICJI 11

AI dlacuned in Section 3 above a fair and nuonable rhk uaeaamen t would have concluded thet t here 1r1 no actual current or future riaka uaochted with the Site AcconHn~tly the NCP eapectation concern in9 groundwa ter reatoution ruy not aerve 11 t he baah tor requiring 1 remedy

5 The Rhode I a lind Water Quality Standuds Do Not Justify A Remedy In The AhiiDCI Of Actual Bilk Tg HUmiD Hultb

Another apparent baaia for the Phna concludon that 1 remedy is neceuery at the Site h that the Shte of Rhode Ialand hu clluUied the vroundwater and aurtace water at the Site 11 water that a hould be of drinking water quality lll However t he State of Rhode Iallnd a dechion to clluify the waten at iuue u potentid drinkinCJ water sources ia relevant under the NCP if at all WllY in the determination of the proper c leanup leveh to be achi eved Thia antyaia is not undertaken unti 1 a remedy h deemed to be necessary as a res u lt o f the rilllks posed by the site The NCP does not authorize EPA to consider the sta ndards when determining whether the site meets the threshold teat for whether a remedy is req uired

The Preambh to the NCP seta forth the role that both federal and ataU water clauification guidelines should play i n remedy selection Firat t he Preamble states that EPA a Gro und - Water Protection Strategy is used as guidance bullw hen determining the appropriate remediation for contami nated ground water at CE RCLA sitesbull and that the Strategy is used to help decide t he Ieyel of remediation that is appropriate for that ground water bull Preamble 55 Ped Reg at 8133 (emphasis supplied) The Preamble

ll Under state regulations the groundwater at the Site is classiHed u Class GA and the surface waters are classified aa Class A RA at 4-4 4-5 Class GA includea bullground water sources desi9 nated to be suitable for public o r private drinking water use without treatment Rhode Island Rules and Regulat ions for Groundwater Quality at S 90l(b) 5JJIIUo RA at 4-4 Class A s urface watera include a 11 wetlands RA at 4-5

-a-n = = ca

Anna Jtruko July Z9 193 Pave U

conaiatently emphuhes that it il the lAYal of clunup which ia determined in put by the reference to the guidelines ld (vuidelinea are uaed by the Superfund progUII u 9uidance to help make dechions on the lAxaLQf ~ neceary for vroundwater at Superfund aiUa) (at every site PA muat decide the appropriate ~ nmedhtign ) (emphuh supplied) SAA amplG Guidelines for Ground- Wate r Chuification under the PA Ground-Water Protection Strategybull Pinal Oratt (December 1986) et ii (Ground-water cllaa will be a factor in deciding the ~~d~~-r~Hctipn or remediation the r11source will be

SUU cluaitications are treated the ume u federal guidelinea To the degree that the a Ute o r locll governmentl have clusified their ground water EPA will C conlider t hese classifications and their applicability tQ the nlection gf an apprgprhte remedy bull Preamble 55 Fed shyn ReCJ at 8733 Thus the existence of state clusificationa for 9round water cannot under the HCP affect the EPAs = determination 11 to whether CERCLA authorizes a remedy at a = particular site This must be done based on site risk 1nd u set fo rth above the Site at issue does not present 1 risk th1t would justify a remedy under CERCLA

Even if it were proper to consider t he 1pplicability of 9round water classification standards at this staC)e the Preamble to the NCP makes clear that such c~uidelines whether atate or fedenl are guidance only 1nd not requirerMnts S Preamble 55 Fed Re9 at 8733 (Ground- Water Protection Strategy used as guidance) at 8734 (u a framework for Superfund ground-water response actiona bull bullto hllR llIHidl t he level of remediation and bullu guidance tg help make dechions on the l eve l of cleanup neceuary bull) SU llJg_

ll In content t he section of the HCP Preamble that discusses baseline risk assessments provides that risk is uaed to determine lihllthli the contaminants of concern identified at the site pose a current or potential risk to human health and the environment in the absence of any remedial action and ttlutthet remedial action is neceuarybull Preamble 55 Fed Reg at 8709

J I

r

Anna Jraako July 29 1993 PICJI 11

AI dlacuned in Section 3 above a fair and nuonable rhk uaeaamen t would have concluded thet t here 1r1 no actual current or future riaka uaochted with the Site AcconHn~tly the NCP eapectation concern in9 groundwa ter reatoution ruy not aerve 11 t he baah tor requiring 1 remedy

5 The Rhode I a lind Water Quality Standuds Do Not Justify A Remedy In The AhiiDCI Of Actual Bilk Tg HUmiD Hultb

Another apparent baaia for the Phna concludon that 1 remedy is neceuery at the Site h that the Shte of Rhode Ialand hu clluUied the vroundwater and aurtace water at the Site 11 water that a hould be of drinking water quality lll However t he State of Rhode Iallnd a dechion to clluify the waten at iuue u potentid drinkinCJ water sources ia relevant under the NCP if at all WllY in the determination of the proper c leanup leveh to be achi eved Thia antyaia is not undertaken unti 1 a remedy h deemed to be necessary as a res u lt o f the rilllks posed by the site The NCP does not authorize EPA to consider the sta ndards when determining whether the site meets the threshold teat for whether a remedy is req uired

The Preambh to the NCP seta forth the role that both federal and ataU water clauification guidelines should play i n remedy selection Firat t he Preamble states that EPA a Gro und - Water Protection Strategy is used as guidance bullw hen determining the appropriate remediation for contami nated ground water at CE RCLA sitesbull and that the Strategy is used to help decide t he Ieyel of remediation that is appropriate for that ground water bull Preamble 55 Ped Reg at 8133 (emphasis supplied) The Preamble

ll Under state regulations the groundwater at the Site is classiHed u Class GA and the surface waters are classified aa Class A RA at 4-4 4-5 Class GA includea bullground water sources desi9 nated to be suitable for public o r private drinking water use without treatment Rhode Island Rules and Regulat ions for Groundwater Quality at S 90l(b) 5JJIIUo RA at 4-4 Class A s urface watera include a 11 wetlands RA at 4-5

-a-n = = ca

Anna Jtruko July Z9 193 Pave U

conaiatently emphuhes that it il the lAYal of clunup which ia determined in put by the reference to the guidelines ld (vuidelinea are uaed by the Superfund progUII u 9uidance to help make dechions on the lAxaLQf ~ neceary for vroundwater at Superfund aiUa) (at every site PA muat decide the appropriate ~ nmedhtign ) (emphuh supplied) SAA amplG Guidelines for Ground- Wate r Chuification under the PA Ground-Water Protection Strategybull Pinal Oratt (December 1986) et ii (Ground-water cllaa will be a factor in deciding the ~~d~~-r~Hctipn or remediation the r11source will be

SUU cluaitications are treated the ume u federal guidelinea To the degree that the a Ute o r locll governmentl have clusified their ground water EPA will C conlider t hese classifications and their applicability tQ the nlection gf an apprgprhte remedy bull Preamble 55 Fed shyn ReCJ at 8733 Thus the existence of state clusificationa for 9round water cannot under the HCP affect the EPAs = determination 11 to whether CERCLA authorizes a remedy at a = particular site This must be done based on site risk 1nd u set fo rth above the Site at issue does not present 1 risk th1t would justify a remedy under CERCLA

Even if it were proper to consider t he 1pplicability of 9round water classification standards at this staC)e the Preamble to the NCP makes clear that such c~uidelines whether atate or fedenl are guidance only 1nd not requirerMnts S Preamble 55 Fed Re9 at 8733 (Ground- Water Protection Strategy used as guidance) at 8734 (u a framework for Superfund ground-water response actiona bull bullto hllR llIHidl t he level of remediation and bullu guidance tg help make dechions on the l eve l of cleanup neceuary bull) SU llJg_

ll In content t he section of the HCP Preamble that discusses baseline risk assessments provides that risk is uaed to determine lihllthli the contaminants of concern identified at the site pose a current or potential risk to human health and the environment in the absence of any remedial action and ttlutthet remedial action is neceuarybull Preamble 55 Fed Reg at 8709

J I

Anna Jtruko July Z9 193 Pave U

conaiatently emphuhes that it il the lAYal of clunup which ia determined in put by the reference to the guidelines ld (vuidelinea are uaed by the Superfund progUII u 9uidance to help make dechions on the lAxaLQf ~ neceary for vroundwater at Superfund aiUa) (at every site PA muat decide the appropriate ~ nmedhtign ) (emphuh supplied) SAA amplG Guidelines for Ground- Wate r Chuification under the PA Ground-Water Protection Strategybull Pinal Oratt (December 1986) et ii (Ground-water cllaa will be a factor in deciding the ~~d~~-r~Hctipn or remediation the r11source will be

SUU cluaitications are treated the ume u federal guidelinea To the degree that the a Ute o r locll governmentl have clusified their ground water EPA will C conlider t hese classifications and their applicability tQ the nlection gf an apprgprhte remedy bull Preamble 55 Fed shyn ReCJ at 8733 Thus the existence of state clusificationa for 9round water cannot under the HCP affect the EPAs = determination 11 to whether CERCLA authorizes a remedy at a = particular site This must be done based on site risk 1nd u set fo rth above the Site at issue does not present 1 risk th1t would justify a remedy under CERCLA

Even if it were proper to consider t he 1pplicability of 9round water classification standards at this staC)e the Preamble to the NCP makes clear that such c~uidelines whether atate or fedenl are guidance only 1nd not requirerMnts S Preamble 55 Fed Re9 at 8733 (Ground- Water Protection Strategy used as guidance) at 8734 (u a framework for Superfund ground-water response actiona bull bullto hllR llIHidl t he level of remediation and bullu guidance tg help make dechions on the l eve l of cleanup neceuary bull) SU llJg_

ll In content t he section of the HCP Preamble that discusses baseline risk assessments provides that risk is uaed to determine lihllthli the contaminants of concern identified at the site pose a current or potential risk to human health and the environment in the absence of any remedial action and ttlutthet remedial action is neceuarybull Preamble 55 Fed Reg at 8709

J I

Anna Jtnallo July n nn Page 20

bullGround-Water Protection Stutegybull (AUiJUit 1984) It 8 (- Whe n atatea hiVt already pped or deailjlnated 9round water for that location the State chuification of the 9round water will provide uufyl qyidancebull) The Prumble alao atatea bullthe 9uidelinea an not used u strict requireiMintsbull Preamble S5 red Re9 ll 8733

Thua the Rhode Illand trroundwater protection standuds do not under CRCLA a nd the NCP j uatify 1 remedy at the Picillo site in the abaence of any c urrent o r f uture risk

6 If A Remedy Were Juatifhd It Should Dt Lillittd Tg Soyrce Cpntrgl

The Plen proposes aelection of a remedy with a aource control component and a manaoement o f migration component Both hiVe the same objectivea to control the plumebull and reatore impacted oroundwater to drinking water quality

Accordin9 to the rs the source contro l component alone (SC-2) will result in aquifer clean-up in about 40 yuu PS at 4-ll7 (Table 442-1) The Plan states that SC-2 will coat about $4 1 million Plan at 17 The Plan indicates thlt the clean-up time would be reduced by about 20 years if source control were followed by 14 yeus of additional groundwater extraction and treatment Plan at 21 Accordino to the Plan the incremental cost of thil management of migration component (MM-3) would be at hut $116 million It appears that about $26 million of thil amount relates to monitorinq so according to the Plan the incrementll coat of 14 yean of additional pump-and-treat ia about $9 0 million

The Companies do not believe any remedy is justified However if EPA decides to require remedial action despite the lack of justification therefor it should be limited to source control There is no justification for spendinq the additional $9 0 million to accele rate the clean-up of a part of an aquifer that probably will never be used a nd almost certdnly will not be needed in the nezt 40 years

The NCP ezpectation with respect to aquifer restoration is that uuble groundwater will be returned to ita beneficial uses bullwit hin a timeframe that is reasonable given the particular circumstances of the s itebull NCP 40 CFR

-n = = =

Anna Kuako July 29 1993 h9e n

S JOO UO(a)(l)(lii)(r) Reuonble reatoration th1 111ay be bullseveral decadeabull in certain c irc umstances Prea111ble 55 red lleg at 1712 What i s reuonable dependa on such tieton 11 whether the i 111pacted watera an bullukely in the near-ter11 to be the aource o f a dr i nkin9 water supply More rapid restoration is feve red in situations where 1 future demand tor drinkinq water from 9round water h likely 1nd other potenti1l sourcea are not auttichnt bull Jd_ Converaely bullJt there 1re other readily available drinking water aources of sufficient quality and yield that m1y be uaed aa an 1ltern1tive water aupply the necessity tor rapid reatoution of the contaminated ground water may be red uced middot 14 The relative coau ot achieving various timefnmes h alao a factor to be considered 14 at 117ll

Aa discuaaed at length 1bove future development of the Picillo Site thlt could 9ive rhe to the need to u the impacted groundwater il 1 remote poaaibillty at beat There ia no buia in the rs or elaewhere aupportin9 a conclusion th1t there will be 1 need tor the Qroundwater within 40 yean Indeed then il no evalu1tion of whether the additionll $9 0 million cost will produce a benefit of equivllent vllue Accordingly there ia no justification for the mana9ement of mi9ution component of the propoaed remedy

7 It Is Particularly Irrati onal To Require Pump-And-Treat Wbtfl QNAPLs Ate Ii keh To 81 Preunt

The presence of DNAPLs provide a aeparate reason for concluding it ia not sensible to require a pump-and-treat remedy at lust at this time The RI and PS concluded th1t DNAPLa are likely to be present at the Site Both reports stated

The relative stabilization of ground water contamination concentrations and the nature and pattern of aubaurface soil contamination strongly su9geat that residual free-phase liquids remain in and near the historic disposal trenches These liquids a complea mhture of volatile and semivolatile compounds continue to contaminate

-n = =

r

Anna ltraako July l9 1993 hcte 22

ahallow ctround water fl owing beneath the diapoul area These l ~_ quida hne alae reco ntaMinated 10me of the c lean aoil used to backfill the previoualy e zcavated 4h poaal trenchea and have 11iguted llteully (or ~ttngered) away f ron~ t he trenches

rs at S-2 RI at J

ampAI JlIQ r s at 2-J O ( fi ngeri n9 of non-1queoua phue liquid ( NAPL ) contarlinat ion hn occurred c auli n9 t h i n zones of highly contanlinated aoil to s pread out from t he trenches )

Aa the Plln reco9nizea if free phaae DNAPLI e d a t drinkinV water standards might no t be met in the foreeable future for reuons of technic al impncticlbility Plan at 21 Thia view has been ezprea aed in EPA guidance aa well 5ampamp Conlidentions in Ground Water Remediltion at Superfund Sites (October 19119) at 6 (acknowle~ging that ONAPLa may preaent substantial uncertainty regar~ing the ability ot the ume~y to return the c~roun~ water to its beneficial uses) valuation Of Ground-Water atnction Reme~iea (September 19119) at J - 8 (Aquifer r toration at situ when cesi~ullll contamination is present in nonaqueous form ia likely to be very slow) EPA Deputy Administrator Robert M suum1n echoed these v i ews in his recent testimony conwnenting that the unanticipated prevalence of DNAPL contaminants will require EPA to refine our ezpec tationa regac~inQ whit the practicable ntent ot groun~ water remediation may be toe many hazardous waste aitea in the Superfund and RCRA Co erective Ac tion programs Testimony at 9

Aquifer restoration is no t a reasonable remedial objective in light of the probable presenc e o f DNAPLa Accordinc~ly if a remedy were o the r wise j us titia~ EPA s hould waive complilnce with MCLs pursuant t o Section 12l(d) (4) (C) of CERCLA on t he 9 r ound t hat ach ievi ng t he m is tec hnically i mpracti c able fr om a n eng i neering pe rs pec t ive Howe ver e ven if EPA bel ieved the re we re a possi bil ity of achiev i nQ MCLs and restori ng the i mpacted aqu ife r to dr i nki no water quality it would be irr a tional to requ i r e a mult i-million dollar pump-and-treat r e medy here

-a-n = = ca

Anna Kuako July 2 1993 PICJe U

The propod source control remedy either will or will not eliminate the DNAPLs and ita aucceaa or failure will be determinable after the source control remedy haa been implemented If anllytical data indicates that DNAPLa still remain subsequent pumpinCJ-Ind-treatinCJ would bullbullke no senae The only theoretical utionalea for it would be 1) to prevent the miCJUtion of the plumes to currently unconUminated ereaa or 2) to create a hydraulic barrier thet would ellow the cln-up of areu beyond the beerier thet presently are contamineted

The firat potenthl justification il not relevant PA hu acknowledoed that the con temin1tion hu reached the limit of ita expansion The plumes diacharoe to surface waten in the Swamps and do not migrate further downstream See discussion at pp 4-5 above

The second potential rationale has no merit There ia no point in creating a hydraulic barrier to allow for downCJradient restoration unless the barrier ia to be permanent If DNAPLa are present permanence could be achieved only by pumping and treatinCJ i ndefinitely The cost for thh would far exceed the $9 0 million estimated for years 7 through 20 of the clean-up The only potential benefit woulCI be to make the small amount of land between the disposal area boundary and t he unnamed Swamp aveilable for potential development In liCJht of the factors set forth in the LeBlanc Report and additionally the proximity of this lanCI to a Superfund site undeCf~oinCJ active remediation development is inconceivable Money spent to create a hydraulic barrier would be wasted

The Companies submittinCJ this letter have had substantial experience with the CERCLA process and moat ue participating directly or indirectly in the Superfund reauthorization debates They believe that Congressi ntended CRCLA to address sites with actual risk to human health If COnCJress had i ntended to require restoration of all impacted parts of aquifers no matter how unlikely their future use it would have so stated in the statute The selection of multi-million dollar remedies for sites like Picillo where there is no actual current or future risk to human health is at the heart of the reauthorization debate

-n = = =

Anna Insko July n 1993 bullbullve zc

nd il the cause for much of the criticilm th1t h11 been directed at IPA about the euvveration of rilk This eugljferation results in the miullocation of resources that could be devoted to addresainv serious problems elsewhere

We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you 1nd your colleavues to dhcuu the situation further before the Record of Decision for the Site is issued

We si ncere l y hope you will give serious consideution to ou r commen ts and not view t hem merely as 1 mea ns of e atbl h hinv 1 li ti g1t ion position

Ve ry t ruly your s

~e~W1 Teri R Simon Counsel nv ico nmentll Mattars General Electric Company

and on behalf o f

Ameri c1n Cyanamid Comp1ny

Ashland Chemic bulll Company

GAP co rpo ration

Monsanto Co rpo rat ion

Rohm 1nd Ha as Company

C-n = = ca

1. barcode 575272
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 575272

Anna Kuako July 29 1993 h9e n

S JOO UO(a)(l)(lii)(r) Reuonble reatoration th1 111ay be bullseveral decadeabull in certain c irc umstances Prea111ble 55 red lleg at 1712 What i s reuonable dependa on such tieton 11 whether the i 111pacted watera an bullukely in the near-ter11 to be the aource o f a dr i nkin9 water supply More rapid restoration is feve red in situations where 1 future demand tor drinkinq water from 9round water h likely 1nd other potenti1l sourcea are not auttichnt bull Jd_ Converaely bullJt there 1re other readily available drinking water aources of sufficient quality and yield that m1y be uaed aa an 1ltern1tive water aupply the necessity tor rapid reatoution of the contaminated ground water may be red uced middot 14 The relative coau ot achieving various timefnmes h alao a factor to be considered 14 at 117ll

Aa discuaaed at length 1bove future development of the Picillo Site thlt could 9ive rhe to the need to u the impacted groundwater il 1 remote poaaibillty at beat There ia no buia in the rs or elaewhere aupportin9 a conclusion th1t there will be 1 need tor the Qroundwater within 40 yean Indeed then il no evalu1tion of whether the additionll $9 0 million cost will produce a benefit of equivllent vllue Accordingly there ia no justification for the mana9ement of mi9ution component of the propoaed remedy

7 It Is Particularly Irrati onal To Require Pump-And-Treat Wbtfl QNAPLs Ate Ii keh To 81 Preunt

The presence of DNAPLs provide a aeparate reason for concluding it ia not sensible to require a pump-and-treat remedy at lust at this time The RI and PS concluded th1t DNAPLa are likely to be present at the Site Both reports stated

The relative stabilization of ground water contamination concentrations and the nature and pattern of aubaurface soil contamination strongly su9geat that residual free-phase liquids remain in and near the historic disposal trenches These liquids a complea mhture of volatile and semivolatile compounds continue to contaminate

-n = =

r

Anna ltraako July l9 1993 hcte 22

ahallow ctround water fl owing beneath the diapoul area These l ~_ quida hne alae reco ntaMinated 10me of the c lean aoil used to backfill the previoualy e zcavated 4h poaal trenchea and have 11iguted llteully (or ~ttngered) away f ron~ t he trenches

rs at S-2 RI at J

ampAI JlIQ r s at 2-J O ( fi ngeri n9 of non-1queoua phue liquid ( NAPL ) contarlinat ion hn occurred c auli n9 t h i n zones of highly contanlinated aoil to s pread out from t he trenches )

Aa the Plln reco9nizea if free phaae DNAPLI e d a t drinkinV water standards might no t be met in the foreeable future for reuons of technic al impncticlbility Plan at 21 Thia view has been ezprea aed in EPA guidance aa well 5ampamp Conlidentions in Ground Water Remediltion at Superfund Sites (October 19119) at 6 (acknowle~ging that ONAPLa may preaent substantial uncertainty regar~ing the ability ot the ume~y to return the c~roun~ water to its beneficial uses) valuation Of Ground-Water atnction Reme~iea (September 19119) at J - 8 (Aquifer r toration at situ when cesi~ullll contamination is present in nonaqueous form ia likely to be very slow) EPA Deputy Administrator Robert M suum1n echoed these v i ews in his recent testimony conwnenting that the unanticipated prevalence of DNAPL contaminants will require EPA to refine our ezpec tationa regac~inQ whit the practicable ntent ot groun~ water remediation may be toe many hazardous waste aitea in the Superfund and RCRA Co erective Ac tion programs Testimony at 9

Aquifer restoration is no t a reasonable remedial objective in light of the probable presenc e o f DNAPLa Accordinc~ly if a remedy were o the r wise j us titia~ EPA s hould waive complilnce with MCLs pursuant t o Section 12l(d) (4) (C) of CERCLA on t he 9 r ound t hat ach ievi ng t he m is tec hnically i mpracti c able fr om a n eng i neering pe rs pec t ive Howe ver e ven if EPA bel ieved the re we re a possi bil ity of achiev i nQ MCLs and restori ng the i mpacted aqu ife r to dr i nki no water quality it would be irr a tional to requ i r e a mult i-million dollar pump-and-treat r e medy here

-a-n = = ca

Anna Kuako July 2 1993 PICJe U

The propod source control remedy either will or will not eliminate the DNAPLs and ita aucceaa or failure will be determinable after the source control remedy haa been implemented If anllytical data indicates that DNAPLa still remain subsequent pumpinCJ-Ind-treatinCJ would bullbullke no senae The only theoretical utionalea for it would be 1) to prevent the miCJUtion of the plumes to currently unconUminated ereaa or 2) to create a hydraulic barrier thet would ellow the cln-up of areu beyond the beerier thet presently are contamineted

The firat potenthl justification il not relevant PA hu acknowledoed that the con temin1tion hu reached the limit of ita expansion The plumes diacharoe to surface waten in the Swamps and do not migrate further downstream See discussion at pp 4-5 above

The second potential rationale has no merit There ia no point in creating a hydraulic barrier to allow for downCJradient restoration unless the barrier ia to be permanent If DNAPLa are present permanence could be achieved only by pumping and treatinCJ i ndefinitely The cost for thh would far exceed the $9 0 million estimated for years 7 through 20 of the clean-up The only potential benefit woulCI be to make the small amount of land between the disposal area boundary and t he unnamed Swamp aveilable for potential development In liCJht of the factors set forth in the LeBlanc Report and additionally the proximity of this lanCI to a Superfund site undeCf~oinCJ active remediation development is inconceivable Money spent to create a hydraulic barrier would be wasted

The Companies submittinCJ this letter have had substantial experience with the CERCLA process and moat ue participating directly or indirectly in the Superfund reauthorization debates They believe that Congressi ntended CRCLA to address sites with actual risk to human health If COnCJress had i ntended to require restoration of all impacted parts of aquifers no matter how unlikely their future use it would have so stated in the statute The selection of multi-million dollar remedies for sites like Picillo where there is no actual current or future risk to human health is at the heart of the reauthorization debate

-n = = =

Anna Insko July n 1993 bullbullve zc

nd il the cause for much of the criticilm th1t h11 been directed at IPA about the euvveration of rilk This eugljferation results in the miullocation of resources that could be devoted to addresainv serious problems elsewhere

We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you 1nd your colleavues to dhcuu the situation further before the Record of Decision for the Site is issued

We si ncere l y hope you will give serious consideution to ou r commen ts and not view t hem merely as 1 mea ns of e atbl h hinv 1 li ti g1t ion position

Ve ry t ruly your s

~e~W1 Teri R Simon Counsel nv ico nmentll Mattars General Electric Company

and on behalf o f

Ameri c1n Cyanamid Comp1ny

Ashland Chemic bulll Company

GAP co rpo ration

Monsanto Co rpo rat ion

Rohm 1nd Ha as Company

C-n = = ca

1. barcode 575272
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 575272

r

Anna ltraako July l9 1993 hcte 22

ahallow ctround water fl owing beneath the diapoul area These l ~_ quida hne alae reco ntaMinated 10me of the c lean aoil used to backfill the previoualy e zcavated 4h poaal trenchea and have 11iguted llteully (or ~ttngered) away f ron~ t he trenches

rs at S-2 RI at J

ampAI JlIQ r s at 2-J O ( fi ngeri n9 of non-1queoua phue liquid ( NAPL ) contarlinat ion hn occurred c auli n9 t h i n zones of highly contanlinated aoil to s pread out from t he trenches )

Aa the Plln reco9nizea if free phaae DNAPLI e d a t drinkinV water standards might no t be met in the foreeable future for reuons of technic al impncticlbility Plan at 21 Thia view has been ezprea aed in EPA guidance aa well 5ampamp Conlidentions in Ground Water Remediltion at Superfund Sites (October 19119) at 6 (acknowle~ging that ONAPLa may preaent substantial uncertainty regar~ing the ability ot the ume~y to return the c~roun~ water to its beneficial uses) valuation Of Ground-Water atnction Reme~iea (September 19119) at J - 8 (Aquifer r toration at situ when cesi~ullll contamination is present in nonaqueous form ia likely to be very slow) EPA Deputy Administrator Robert M suum1n echoed these v i ews in his recent testimony conwnenting that the unanticipated prevalence of DNAPL contaminants will require EPA to refine our ezpec tationa regac~inQ whit the practicable ntent ot groun~ water remediation may be toe many hazardous waste aitea in the Superfund and RCRA Co erective Ac tion programs Testimony at 9

Aquifer restoration is no t a reasonable remedial objective in light of the probable presenc e o f DNAPLa Accordinc~ly if a remedy were o the r wise j us titia~ EPA s hould waive complilnce with MCLs pursuant t o Section 12l(d) (4) (C) of CERCLA on t he 9 r ound t hat ach ievi ng t he m is tec hnically i mpracti c able fr om a n eng i neering pe rs pec t ive Howe ver e ven if EPA bel ieved the re we re a possi bil ity of achiev i nQ MCLs and restori ng the i mpacted aqu ife r to dr i nki no water quality it would be irr a tional to requ i r e a mult i-million dollar pump-and-treat r e medy here

-a-n = = ca

Anna Kuako July 2 1993 PICJe U

The propod source control remedy either will or will not eliminate the DNAPLs and ita aucceaa or failure will be determinable after the source control remedy haa been implemented If anllytical data indicates that DNAPLa still remain subsequent pumpinCJ-Ind-treatinCJ would bullbullke no senae The only theoretical utionalea for it would be 1) to prevent the miCJUtion of the plumes to currently unconUminated ereaa or 2) to create a hydraulic barrier thet would ellow the cln-up of areu beyond the beerier thet presently are contamineted

The firat potenthl justification il not relevant PA hu acknowledoed that the con temin1tion hu reached the limit of ita expansion The plumes diacharoe to surface waten in the Swamps and do not migrate further downstream See discussion at pp 4-5 above

The second potential rationale has no merit There ia no point in creating a hydraulic barrier to allow for downCJradient restoration unless the barrier ia to be permanent If DNAPLa are present permanence could be achieved only by pumping and treatinCJ i ndefinitely The cost for thh would far exceed the $9 0 million estimated for years 7 through 20 of the clean-up The only potential benefit woulCI be to make the small amount of land between the disposal area boundary and t he unnamed Swamp aveilable for potential development In liCJht of the factors set forth in the LeBlanc Report and additionally the proximity of this lanCI to a Superfund site undeCf~oinCJ active remediation development is inconceivable Money spent to create a hydraulic barrier would be wasted

The Companies submittinCJ this letter have had substantial experience with the CERCLA process and moat ue participating directly or indirectly in the Superfund reauthorization debates They believe that Congressi ntended CRCLA to address sites with actual risk to human health If COnCJress had i ntended to require restoration of all impacted parts of aquifers no matter how unlikely their future use it would have so stated in the statute The selection of multi-million dollar remedies for sites like Picillo where there is no actual current or future risk to human health is at the heart of the reauthorization debate

-n = = =

Anna Insko July n 1993 bullbullve zc

nd il the cause for much of the criticilm th1t h11 been directed at IPA about the euvveration of rilk This eugljferation results in the miullocation of resources that could be devoted to addresainv serious problems elsewhere

We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you 1nd your colleavues to dhcuu the situation further before the Record of Decision for the Site is issued

We si ncere l y hope you will give serious consideution to ou r commen ts and not view t hem merely as 1 mea ns of e atbl h hinv 1 li ti g1t ion position

Ve ry t ruly your s

~e~W1 Teri R Simon Counsel nv ico nmentll Mattars General Electric Company

and on behalf o f

Ameri c1n Cyanamid Comp1ny

Ashland Chemic bulll Company

GAP co rpo ration

Monsanto Co rpo rat ion

Rohm 1nd Ha as Company

C-n = = ca

1. barcode 575272
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 575272

Anna Kuako July 2 1993 PICJe U

The propod source control remedy either will or will not eliminate the DNAPLs and ita aucceaa or failure will be determinable after the source control remedy haa been implemented If anllytical data indicates that DNAPLa still remain subsequent pumpinCJ-Ind-treatinCJ would bullbullke no senae The only theoretical utionalea for it would be 1) to prevent the miCJUtion of the plumes to currently unconUminated ereaa or 2) to create a hydraulic barrier thet would ellow the cln-up of areu beyond the beerier thet presently are contamineted

The firat potenthl justification il not relevant PA hu acknowledoed that the con temin1tion hu reached the limit of ita expansion The plumes diacharoe to surface waten in the Swamps and do not migrate further downstream See discussion at pp 4-5 above

The second potential rationale has no merit There ia no point in creating a hydraulic barrier to allow for downCJradient restoration unless the barrier ia to be permanent If DNAPLa are present permanence could be achieved only by pumping and treatinCJ i ndefinitely The cost for thh would far exceed the $9 0 million estimated for years 7 through 20 of the clean-up The only potential benefit woulCI be to make the small amount of land between the disposal area boundary and t he unnamed Swamp aveilable for potential development In liCJht of the factors set forth in the LeBlanc Report and additionally the proximity of this lanCI to a Superfund site undeCf~oinCJ active remediation development is inconceivable Money spent to create a hydraulic barrier would be wasted

The Companies submittinCJ this letter have had substantial experience with the CERCLA process and moat ue participating directly or indirectly in the Superfund reauthorization debates They believe that Congressi ntended CRCLA to address sites with actual risk to human health If COnCJress had i ntended to require restoration of all impacted parts of aquifers no matter how unlikely their future use it would have so stated in the statute The selection of multi-million dollar remedies for sites like Picillo where there is no actual current or future risk to human health is at the heart of the reauthorization debate

-n = = =

Anna Insko July n 1993 bullbullve zc

nd il the cause for much of the criticilm th1t h11 been directed at IPA about the euvveration of rilk This eugljferation results in the miullocation of resources that could be devoted to addresainv serious problems elsewhere

We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you 1nd your colleavues to dhcuu the situation further before the Record of Decision for the Site is issued

We si ncere l y hope you will give serious consideution to ou r commen ts and not view t hem merely as 1 mea ns of e atbl h hinv 1 li ti g1t ion position

Ve ry t ruly your s

~e~W1 Teri R Simon Counsel nv ico nmentll Mattars General Electric Company

and on behalf o f

Ameri c1n Cyanamid Comp1ny

Ashland Chemic bulll Company

GAP co rpo ration

Monsanto Co rpo rat ion

Rohm 1nd Ha as Company

C-n = = ca

1. barcode 575272
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 575272

Anna Insko July n 1993 bullbullve zc

nd il the cause for much of the criticilm th1t h11 been directed at IPA about the euvveration of rilk This eugljferation results in the miullocation of resources that could be devoted to addresainv serious problems elsewhere

We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you 1nd your colleavues to dhcuu the situation further before the Record of Decision for the Site is issued

We si ncere l y hope you will give serious consideution to ou r commen ts and not view t hem merely as 1 mea ns of e atbl h hinv 1 li ti g1t ion position

Ve ry t ruly your s

~e~W1 Teri R Simon Counsel nv ico nmentll Mattars General Electric Company

and on behalf o f

Ameri c1n Cyanamid Comp1ny

Ashland Chemic bulll Company

GAP co rpo ration

Monsanto Co rpo rat ion

Rohm 1nd Ha as Company

C-n = = ca

1. barcode 575272
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 575272